From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Oct 1 02:21:11 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:21:11 -0000 Subject: Disappointment re: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <2795713f0709301655w7ff50ac9j66dcde0dfcd6fb73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > I never assumed that because the Sorting Hat kept singing about House Unity > and standing together that such a thing had to come to fruition. Would it > have been a nice, pat conclusion for the series to show such an ending. > Yes. And They All Lived Happily Ever After. That would have been nice. But > the nod from Draco to Harry et. al is certainly better than nothing. > Allie: Exactly, a polite nod instead of venomous glares. What nobody seems to take into consideration is that the pureblood views of Slytherin house have held for hundreds of years, and the upheavel in Harry's generation was really only, what, 2 years long? Can we expect a reform that fast? The fundamental change, if you want to believe that it happened, was after Voldemort's death. From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Oct 1 02:47:47 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:47:47 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177593 Deathly Hallows, 708, US: Harry: "He took my blood." DD: "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to live while he lives!" "His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." This means that it is *impossible* for Harry to be killed by Voldemort after he is reborn. So except for a few happy coincidences, the scene at King's Cross could have happened any number of other times: 1. In the graveyard in GoF - Harry and Voldemort dueled. Even without the twin cores, Harry could not have died. 2. The MoM in OoTP - Voldemort fires an AK at Harry, and he is saved by a piece of the statue. 3. The chase seen in the beginning of DH - Harry's wand miraculously "regurgitates" some of Voldemort's magic at him, but even if it hadn't done that, it wouldn't have mattered. Why, then, did the rebounding curse rip Voldemort out of his body when he attacked Harry in Godric's Hollow, but merely knock him out for a few minutes in the forest? Was it the addition of the Nagini horcrux (the Harry-horcrux having been destroyed by his curse)? Or did the curse *not* rebound on him, and if not, why not? In fact, if the blood protection is still in effect, does that mean there was no way EVER for Voldemort to kill Harry? That Lily's sacrifice endowed Harry **forever** with protection from Voldemort's AK? Then why didn't Voldemort realize this, and let someone else finish Harry off? He admits that he didn't realize the power of what Lily did until it was too late. Why does he think it would only work that one time? Before the Horcruxes were destroyed, Voldemort could have fired curse after curse at Harry and still not killed him. Allie (who gets more confused the more she thinks about these things, and is now so confused that she hopes some kind soul will help further muddy the waters... um, clarify things) From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 02:46:57 2007 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:46:57 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177594 > > Magpie: > > > > > And that's assuming she's > Slytherin based on Sirius' comment. > > Carol responds: > > True, we do have no evidence that Andromeda was a Slytherin other than > her cousin Sirius's comment, but there's no counterevidence. As for > "characters you write yourself," we don't have to do that with Andromeda. > Bev: I've been thinking about this but with no book handy, I think Horace Slughorn confirms this when he and Harry first meet. He says something about the entire Black family being in his house except Sirius who went to Gryffindor. I remember him saying something like after Regulus came and was put into Slytherin, Slughorn wished he'd had the complete set? Bev From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 03:02:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:02:18 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177595 Harry Potter (1980 - ) The Boy Who Lived, only known survivor of the Avada Kedavra curse and conqueror of Lord Voldemort, also known as Tom Riddle. Harry Potter joined the reshuffled Auror Department under Kingsley Shacklebolt at age 17, rising to become Head of said department in 2007. Alla: So, I had been saying all along and will continue to do so - that JKR multiple math inconsistencies do not bother me one bit.... Unless it will majorly put me out of the story. And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure that epilogue is set up in 2007. Does it mean that Harry fathered his oldest at 15??????? OR is epilogue set up later and I confused myself? I have a suspicion that my math skills are much worse than JKR's Alla From sherriola at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 03:08:07 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:08:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4700649b.02098c0a.0822.ffffa62d@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177596 Alla: So, I had been saying all along and will continue to do so - that JKR multiple math inconsistencies do not bother me one bit.... Unless it will majorly put me out of the story. And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure that epilogue is set up in 2007. Does it mean that Harry fathered his oldest at 15??????? OR is epilogue set up later and I confused myself? Sherry: I believe the epilog takes place in 2017. Harry was born in 1980. He defeated Voldemort in 1998. So, 19 years later would be 2018. I hope that helps clear things up. Sherry From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 03:35:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:35:00 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177597 > > Carol responds: > > > > True, we do have no evidence that Andromeda was a Slytherin other > than > > her cousin Sirius's comment, but there's no counterevidence. As for > > "characters you write yourself," we don't have to do that with > Andromeda. > > Magpie: If you say that Andromeda married a Muggle-born and was a Black and left her family, you're sticking to canon. You want anything more detailed about what that was like or what she's like, you're filling it in yourself. But whether she's "good" or not is that the point. We know she left her family to marry a Muggle-born, and that she's Tonks and Ted in getting Harry out of the house. She's not a bad guy. (Of course, neither are some of the other Slytherins Adam mentioned.) However, she is still barely on the page and that is why she doesn't seem like a real good symbol for any hope or sign about Slytherin one way or another. (I've read posts on this list that argued that if we are given information that isn't contradicted that *doesn't* mean we have to take it as canon.) BuBut this isn't about whether Andromeda really left her family for a Muggle-born or not. That pretty much seem accepted as canon by everyone. The disagreement is over whether a character this tiny can really carry this much weight. Even if you want to make her the poster child for how Slytherin's going to change at some point after 19 years after we've met her, she still can't tell you about how it could happen, because we don't really know the story. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 03:38:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:38:57 -0000 Subject: Seeking the truth (Was: Disappointment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177598 Carol earlier: > > Obviously, JKR herself has a different view of what constitutes "the good stuff," or should we say, the important elements. Clearly, the center for her is Harry's story, his suffering and struggle and ultimate victory. Harry's search for "the truth," a phrase he or the narrator uses multiple times in the book, seems to me an important motif that has barely been touched on in our HPfGU discussions. Ironically, the Seeker asks if he's meant "to know but not to seek" (quoted from memory). That idea seems to me to be worth exploring ). > Jen responded: I'm particularly interested in the topic of 'the truth' in DH if anyone is up for a discussion. > Carol again: Yes, so am I, which is why I tossed it into the "disappointment" discussion, where, admittedly, it didn't belong. It seems to me an important and intriguing topic that we've barely touched on and I'm definitely up for a discussion on it once I get my thoughts together. Harry, after all, is "the Seeker" in all the books, but that position becomes symbolic rather than literal in DH. The question is what he's seeking, aside from Horcruxes (a variation on the quest motif of countless myths, legends, and stories). But it seems to me that his real interest, expressed repeatedly, is in finding "the truth." SSS has compiled a number of quotations that refer to Harry's search for truth, and I'm waiting for her to post before I present any organized arguments on the subject, so I'll just toss out a few thoughts on the subject in hopes that others will find them worth responding to. It struck me that Harry not only expresses a desire for the truth about Dumbledore, which he eventually finds, but he also finds the truth about Snape, which he wasn't seeking, as well as the truth about his confrontation with Voldemort, about the Hallows, and perhaps about himself. And there's Godric's Hollow, too, where he has not wished to go until this book. He finds the truth about his parents' death (not quite the enlightening chat with old Bathilda he envisioned), but not about death itself until "King's Cross." Forgive the incoherent thoughts; I'm just tossing out pieces of the puzzle here, without any attempt to fit it together. I'm definitely interested in others' ideas on the subject and in SSS's canon, from which I suppose I'll have to work deductively to discover what I think. Jen: > Harry learning the truth about himself and Dumbledore, how their lives were woven together and what that meant for Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort, was the central mystery in DH as I understood the story. It turns out Harry and Dumbledore were connected by much more than the prophecy: they were also connected by their shared pasts in Godric's Hollow, the Hallows, and how each one dealt with power when presented with the option to pursue powerful magical objects in their respective lives. Carol responds: That's interesting. Are you suggesting that the Horcrux hunt is just a device to structure the plot around, but the central mystery (and, of course, there's one in every book) is the DD/Harry connection? Certainly, he's asking questions about DD that he never asked when DD was alive (how painfully true that particular insight into human nature is), but I'm not altogether sure that DD is the center. It seems to me (and I'm not arguing, just feeling my way here) that the central mystery is "the truth" about everything related to Harry as the Chosen One (including Snape though Harry doesn't know it). Voldemort, too, is woven into that central mystery, as are the Hallows (he's the descendant of the second brother) and Godric's Hollow, where he was ripped apart and created his own nemesis. And the nature of death itself, which Hermione tries to explain (the soul is eternal, very different from the earthly mortality LV desires and tries through evil and unnatural magic to obrain). I know this idea will be rejected vehemently by some readers, but for me, "Seeker" combined with Harry's repeated demands for "the truth" suggests the biblical "Seek, and ye shall find" and a line from the Episcopal Holy Eucharist, "For all who proclaim the Gospel, and all who seek the truth." Harry obviously isn't proclaiming the Gospel (and I don't think JKR is, either, though certainly I see an emphasis on redemption and the afterlife) but I do think that his depiction as a Seeker in the previous books has been leading up to his role as Seeker of the Truth in this one. (The Christian elements of the search for truth are not necessary to the discussion; Harry himself makes the one symbolic gesture of placing a cross above the "grave" of Moody's eye but even on Christmas Eve as carols are being sung in the church, he thinks of his parents' dust or bones lying in their graves and not of their souls. Harry, in short, is not a Christian despite celebrating Christmas and Easter as secularized holidays, so anyone who dislikes that idea can simply ignore it.) Another stray thought here: Regulus is also a Seeker, as Harry notices when he sees his photograph with his Slytherin team (none of whom is described as ugly or sneering, just boys waving from a photograph). Maybe Regulus also found a truth he wasn't seeking? Why bring in that detail at all except to create a symbolic bond between Harry and a Slytherin he never knew who also happened to be, like Harry, seventeen? Jen: > As I said in another post, I read the Hallows fitting into this part of the story, that the Hallows were important for Harry's past as the last descendent of Ignotus Peverell and owner of one of the Hallows (as well as how the Hallows connected to Dumbledore's story). Learning the truth about the Hallows and himself in the process is what stopped Harry from seeking the wand instead of the Horcruxes: "And I am meant to know, but not to seek? Did you know how hard I'd find that? Is that why you made it this difficult? So I'd have time to work that out?" (DH, chap. 24, p.483, Am. ed.) Carol: Yes, that's the quote I was remembering. ("Am I," not "I am," though, right?). I interpret it as meaning,"meant to know [the truth about the Elder Wand] but not to seek [it]," but it could refer to the Hallows in general because he hasn't yet figured out how (or when) to open the Snitch and "find" the Resurrection Stone. I think he's supposed to seek *the truth* about the Hallows, just not seek the Hallows themselves and the wand in particular. (Obviously, he can't seek the IC, just discover the truth about it.) > Jen: > There's so much more, I can't do the topic justice at the moment! I hope others will add how they saw this particular topic evolve in the story and why it was important (if it seemed important to others). Carol: Exactly. I think Harry's search for "the truth" (which he thinks he finds after seeing Snape's memories, and certainly, once he figures out how to open the Snitch, he knows everything he needs to know for the *first* confrontation with LV) culminates with "King's Cross," in which DD, as usual, provides the last pieces of the puzzle, but this time, Harry puts them together himself, as we see in the final confrontation when Harry rather than DD provides the exposition that solves the central mystery for the reader. As I said, I'm just tossing out thoughts on the subject that have occurred to me and not attempting to present a coherent argument, only to show why I think it's important to explore the topic and see what we can find. Carol, hoping she hasn't jumped the gun by not waiting for SSS's post, which she's eagerly looking forward to From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 04:02:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:02:23 -0000 Subject: Seeking the truth / My math skills ARE worse than JKR :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177599 Carol: > Another stray thought here: Regulus is also a Seeker, as Harry notices > when he sees his photograph with his Slytherin team (none of whom is > described as ugly or sneering, just boys waving from a photograph). > Maybe Regulus also found a truth he wasn't seeking? Why bring in that > detail at all except to create a symbolic bond between Harry and a > Slytherin he never knew who also happened to be, like Harry, seventeen? Alla: I am falling asleep and may address more of your points tomorrow, but definitely wanted to address this one. There is another similarity here at works, I think. Both Harry and Regulus die ( well Harry comes back of course) because they are not willing to let anybody else die for them or suffer for them. Granted in Harry's case it is whole WW, in Reg's case it is just one House Elf, but I do think that JKR meant to show that if we think about it, there is not much difference at all, whether you are willing to sacrifice yourself to stop the sufferings of one person or many. I do think Reg found the truth that Harry found too. Is JKR saying that Regulus had the potential to be Harry of his generation by his newly found capacity to love as well? Or maybe capacity to love that he always had, but which was cut so tragically? Sherry: I believe the epilog takes place in 2017. Harry was born in 1980. He defeated Voldemort in 1998. So, 19 years later would be 2018. I hope that helps clear things up. Alla: Thanks dearest :) DUH Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 04:49:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:49:29 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177600 Carol earlier: > > > > > > True, we do have no evidence that Andromeda was a Slytherin other than her cousin Sirius's comment, but there's no counterevidence. As for "characters you write yourself," we don't have to do that with Andromeda. > > > > > Magpie: > If you say that Andromeda married a Muggle-born and was a Black and left her family, you're sticking to canon. You want anything more detailed about what that was like or what she's like, you're filling it in yourself. > > But whether she's "good" or not is that the point. We know she left her family to marry a Muggle-born, and that she's Tonks and Ted in getting Harry out of the house. She's not a bad guy. However, she is still barely on the page and that is why she doesn't seem like a real good symbol for any hope or sign about Slytherin one way or another. > > BuBut this isn't about whether Andromeda really left her family for a Muggle-born or not. That pretty much seem accepted as canon by everyone. The disagreement is over whether a character this tiny can really carry this much weight. Even if you want to make her the poster child for how Slytherin's going to change at some point after 19 years after we've met her, she still can't tell you about how it could happen, because we don't really know the story. > Carol responds: Having just quoted the available canon on Andromeda, I'm not going to repeat myself. However, I certainly did not write the character I presented. JKR did. That character married the likeable Muggle-born, Ted Tonks and was disowned by her family for so doing. Canon. She is good at "householdy spells" and healed the injured Hagrid. Canon. She loves her daughter. Canon. She and her husband together worked with the Order to provide a safe house as part of the polyjuiced Harry plan. Canon. She loves her daughter and feared for her safety. Canon. She provided a safe house for her daughter and her daughter's husband after her own husband was killed and her daughter's baby was born there. Canon. She watched the baby while Lupin and "Dora" fought at Hogwarts. Canon. Andromeda has "kind eyes." Canon. She's Sirius's favorite cousin. Canon. Her husband's use of affectionate nicknames for his wife and daughter (canon) and their mutual concern for their daughter (canon) indicate a close family relationship. Inference. Andromeda lost both her husband and her daughter (as well as her son-in-law) Canon. She probably suffered terrible grief as a consequence. Inference. The "happy orphan" that JKR intentionally depicted in the epilogue (interview) was probably raised by his grandmother rather than by his young godfather, Harry. Inference. I think that the inferences are justified by the canon. Nowhere do I see any evidence that Andromeda was a bad person or that she resembles her sisters in personality or values despite a superficial physical resemblance to Bellatrix. (She shares Narcissa's one good trait, love of family, especially her child.) I agree that Andromeda is a minor character. However, she must be in the story for a reason, and the only reason I can think of is to show that not all Slytherins are evil. She's clearly a foil (in the sense of a character who mirrors and contrasts with another character) to both her sisters. (How nice that the good sister is the middle one and not the youngest, in contrast to the tale of the three brothers, which follows the standard fairytale formula of youngest equals best.) Add her to the list we already have: Snape, Regulus, Slughorn, and possibly Phineas Nigellus as good Slytherins, Kreacher as redeemed Slytherin hanger-on who certainly held the pureblood superiority values of his owners, and the semi-redeemed, not-as-evil-as-we-thought Malfoys, and that's a pretty good indication that there's hope for Slytherin House, especially since these people are the Slytherins we know best (excluding Crabbe and Goyle). If you don't agree, I can't convince you. But I'm not making up Andromeda's story. It's right there in the canon I cited in the previous post, along with a few legitimate inferences which are the only parts I'm "filling in." I'm not saying that she's a full-fledged character or that we know her thoroughly, but she is certainly a good guy in terms of her actions, her loves, and her loyalties. And the fact that she chose the good side when one sister became a DE and the other married one is very much to her credit. Carol, who said nothing at all about Andromeda as "poster child" nineteen years later and notes that the future of Slytherin lies with Scorpius Malfoy's generation From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 06:35:28 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:35:28 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Harry Potter > (1980 - ) > The Boy Who Lived, only known survivor of the Avada Kedavra curse > and conqueror of Lord Voldemort, also known as Tom Riddle. Harry > Potter joined the reshuffled Auror Department under Kingsley > Shacklebolt at age 17, rising to become Head of said department in > 2007. > > > Alla: > > So, I had been saying all along and will continue to do so - that > JKR multiple math inconsistencies do not bother me one bit.... > Unless it will majorly put me out of the story. > > And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure that epilogue > is set up in 2007. Does it mean that Harry fathered his oldest at > 15??????? OR is epilogue set up later and I confused myself? > > I have a suspicion that my math skills are much worse than JKR's Geoff: I'm not entirely sure it is Maths skills which are at fault! Harry turned 17 very close to the beginning of DH and I reckon that the defeat of Voldemort took the action well into the following year of 1998. I rather doubt that Harry joined the Aurors on the following day so I suspect he must have been at least 18 before that happened. We have already calculated that the events of the epilogue occur in the summer of 2017 when Harry is 27. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 06:35:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:35:12 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177602 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Harry Potter > (1980 - ) > The Boy Who Lived, only known survivor of the Avada > Kedavra curse and conqueror of Lord Voldemort, also > known as Tom Riddle. Harry Potter joined the > reshuffled Auror Department under Kingsley Shacklebolt > at age 17, rising to become Head of said department in > 2007. > > > Alla: > > So, I had been saying all along and will continue to > do so - that JKR multiple math inconsistencies do not > bother me one bit.... Unless it will majorly put me > out of the story. > > And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure > that epilogue is set up in 2007. Does it mean that > Harry fathered his oldest at 15??????? OR is epilogue > set up later and I confused myself? > > I have a suspicion that my math skills are much worse > than JKR's > > Alla > bboyminn: Well, I won't touch that comment on your math skills. But I wonder if you aren't assuming certain things that aren't true. In 1998 Harry defeated Voldemort. Five years* later, he and Ginny married can began having kids. Four years after that, for a total of 9 years, Harry is promoted to Head of the Auror's Office. 1998 +_ 5 +_ 4 _______ 2007 Ten more years after that, we see the Epilog, making the year 2017. If we assume, James is age 13 in the Epilog, then this also adds up. 1998+5+13 = 2016, which would imply that James turns 14 later in the school year. We don't really know what year James is in in school. All we know is he is returning to school and he has a younger brother who is likely 11 years old. So, he could be 12, 13, or age 14 and still reasonably fit the time line. So,...more or less... everything does add up. Steve/bboyminn From maccanena at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 06:42:19 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 07:42:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f40e2480709302342y57a94a95j5627d25735da6319@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177603 On 10/1/07, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > Harry turned 17 very close to the beginning of DH and I reckon that > the defeat of Voldemort took the action well into the following year > of 1998. I rather doubt that Harry joined the Aurors on the following > day so I suspect he must have been at least 18 before that happened. > Very true! However, it is not hard to imagine that, immediately following the final battle, Kingsley would gather up a bunch of capable wizards, who would eventually be the core of the Auror department under his Ministry, to round up all the running about Death Eaters and Voldemort supporters. I very much doubt that they would hand themselves in, so there must have been some work to do afterwards. And I am sure Harry would be amongst the first of them, so he would be joining what would become the Auror Department then, even though an office desk and official job might not have come until later in the summer, when he was 18. Maria From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 1 08:36:48 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:36:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House Message-ID: <644762.64566.qm@web86211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177604 bboyminn: I think people are over reacting to Slytherin House. Being sorted there does not guarantee that you will go on to be a Dark Wizard and live a life of crime. That's ridiculous in my opinion. Irene: But that's what the books strongly suggest. For example, in book 2, when Harry is worried that he is too similar to Voldemort, and Dumbledore talks about the choices that show who you are, he does not say that Harry had chosen to be a good person (and would have stayed a good person even if sorted into Slytherin). Dumbledore says that by the very action of actively choosing Gryffindor, Harry has demonstrated his superiority to Vodemort. It seems to suggest to me that going into Slytherin is by itself a demonstration of evil predisposition, even before the child had actually performed anything dark. Irene From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 10:33:42 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:33:42 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4700CD06.50009@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177605 eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 17/09/2007 00:10: > Instead of telling us that the name is not to be taken literally JKR > does something much better, she shows us. But you're attempting to argue from the conclusion to the premise. Since it is precisely the behavior of the "good guys" in DH which is the point of contention here, however, it cannot be used to prove anything. A bit like trying to arue, "Well, rape can't be so bad. After all, Tom's committed rape, and we know he's a good guy." To which the obvious reply is: If Tom's a rapist, then no, he's NOT a good guy. > So, are you asking us to believe that Hermione hated Harry till her > dying day? If there were moral consistency between DH and the rest of the series, yes, I would expect it. That she doesn't is the heart of the issue. --CJ From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 1 13:04:33 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:04:33 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177606 Jen wrote: > Wow, it's a slow list day! I've got a question for a slow day: why > *did* Snape call Lily a Mudblood? Also, I'm curious how others read > Snape's Worst Memory given his new memories in DH. Did the resolution > work for you? I'm on the fence about this part. Potioncat: I think we could make a full tapestry if we started a few threads about how different Snape scenes in the first 6 books play out with information from book 7. And I would gladly weave along. I've read the other posts to this question, and I think I must be a lone wolf. I have some nagging doubts about SWM based on what came before. But I have to admit, I haven't had time to really read through the scenes to think it out. So, granted, this is half-baked. It had been suggested before DH that Snape's real pain in SWM was that he called Lily a Mudblood and that it dashed any hopes he had for a relationship with her. (Remember, at that time, we didn't know they were friends.) Well, that seems to be the case. But now that we know they were already friends, it doesn't make as much sense. I understand that a boy doesn't want to be rescued by a girl-- but this is the WW! If instead of the Marauders, it had been Draco's gang and Harry (or Ron), do you think he would be upset at Hermione's interference? If it had been Draco and the twins, I could see it, but Draco doesn't have a relationship with Hermione (at least, not on this list.) So, I could buy Severus's discomfort if he didn't yet have a relationship with Lily---but it doesn't ring true now. His words were something along the line of "from a filthy Mudblood like her." (I think.) Maybe that would sound more likely if we knew other Junior DEs were in the crowd judging Severus's reaction. Then his discomfort would have more to do with how his Slytherin friends saw the situation. So, I'm saying, I don't think JKR hit the right notes. However, based on Snape's collection of memories, and accepting this as canon, (like there's a choice?) I take it as it appears and accept the outcome. As a side, this theme plays out often in literature about the Southern US during pre-Segregation or Ante-bellum times. There would come a point where a friendship between a Black child and White child would end because the White child would stand on his superior status. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 1 13:28:57 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:28:57 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177607 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Harry Potter > (1980 - ) > The Boy Who Lived, only known survivor of the Avada Kedavra curse > and conqueror of Lord Voldemort, also known as Tom Riddle. Harry > Potter joined the reshuffled Auror Department under Kingsley > Shacklebolt at age 17, rising to become Head of said department in > 2007. Potioncat: Hmm, looks like JKR is going for heroes of the war. Anyone want to predict the next 12 months of Wizard of the Month? Could we make a poll? Bonus points if you get the order right...winner has the most names? Then again, it might be too easy. ;-) From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Mon Oct 1 13:48:19 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:48:19 -0000 Subject: Family Loyalty/Death Eater Numbers/Slytherin Loyalty/Xeno. Lovegood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177608 > Catlady wrote: >> or.phan_ann wrote in >> : >> >> << The Wizarding World is only too keen on sweeping dirty secrets >> under the carpet: consider the number of Death Eaters who went >> free, and the fact that there were known to be at least some at >> large. (The tip of an iceberg, that one.) >> > > You had just mentioned "such a small [community] as the Wizarding > World", which gave me that idea that, in addition to their habit of > hiding rather than lancing abscesses, such a smalll community needs > all its workers and gene pool and therefore can't afford to exile a > large number of people no matter how much they deserve it. Ann: We don't know how many loyal human followers Voldemort had - I'm not counting those who were Imperiused or blackmailed or whatever, like Ludo Bagman (or as I see him, anyway.) But it doesn't seem to have been that many. GoF Chapter 34 mentions at the very beginning that Harry is outnumbered "at least thirty to one". Both the rituals that precede this - each Death Eater kissing Voldemort's robes, and a personal inspection of the troops - imply that there are dozens present, not hundreds. So thirty-odd have escaped Azkaban one way or another (Karkaroff turned Crouch's evidence in chapter 30), and there must be a few more who are either afraid to return, dead, or caught short as Snape was; say forty, or fifty at the absolute most. (It's odd that so many can turn up at such short notice, anyway; let's chalk this one up to Expedience.) Now, how much material damage to the Wizarding World would putting that lot in Azkaban do? It would make the postwar reconstruction harder, yes, but isn't saying the Ministry "couldn't have afforded it" going a bit too far? About Slytherins: Loyalty does seem to be a fundamental Slytherin trait. Consider Slughorn, the nearest thing we have IMO to a stereotypical House member; how, exactly would his network of friends work without a strong sense of loyalty? Putting the Slug before official Ministry policy in this way is exactly what Snape and Narcissa Malfoy do. In their case it's romantic and parental love, but the principle's the same. Andromeda we don't know about (presumably she loved her family), but it looks like "family-and-friends above the law" is quintessential Slytherin. This ties into the patronage system LJ user Pharnabazus came up with (http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/, and scroll down, if you haven't seen it before). This quality coupled with ambition is probably one reason why the Wizarding World's so corrupt - everyone in power's willing to bend the rules for a friend... It's also exactly what Xenophilius Lovegood does, of course, and I've had him pegged as a Slytherin as a while. He's solitary, so presumably neither a Gryffindor nor a Hufflepuff. He's not, I think, as intelligent as his daughter, because he's apparently invented his monsters and conspiracies out of whole cloth, rather than being taught about them since birth. she may be gullible, but he's self-deluding. I think this is a perversion of the Slytherin quality of ambition; in short, he doesn't have what it takes to reach the top of the tree, so he's grown his own and climbed right up - and he does seem to be at the top; that Quibbler needs writers, after all. He really thinks it's better to reign in an artificial Hell than serve in Heaven, and I'd call that his main moral failing. Certainly I don't blame him for trying to rat out the Trio in exchange for Luna. Ann, who likes Slughorn, and does ramble on rather, doesn't she? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 13:55:50 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:55:50 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: <644762.64566.qm@web86211.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > I think people are over reacting to Slytherin House. > Being sorted there does not guarantee that you will > go on to be a Dark Wizard and live a life of crime. > That's ridiculous in my opinion. > > Irene: > > But that's what the books strongly suggest. For example, in book 2, when Harry is worried that he is too similar to Voldemort, and Dumbledore talks about the choices that show who you are, he does not say that Harry had chosen to be a good person (and would have stayed a good person even if sorted into Slytherin). > Dumbledore says that by the very action of actively choosing Gryffindor, Harry has demonstrated his superiority to Vodemort. It seems to suggest to me that going into Slytherin is by itself a demonstration of evil predisposition, even before the child had actually performed anything dark. > > Irene lizzyben: Dumbledore's words are reinforced by JKR as well: JR: New pupils at Hogwarts try on a talking magic hat. But Harry is disturbed by what the hat tells him. JKR: What I'm working towards there is the fact that our choices, rather than our abilities, show us what we truly are. That's brought out in the difference between Harry and his arch-enemy, Tom Riddle. In Chamber of Secrets, Harry is told by the hat that if he goes into Slytherin house, home of warped wizards, he will become a powerful wizard. He chooses not to do that. But Tom Riddle, who has been twisted by ambition and lack of love, succumbs to the desire for power. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/1101-candis-renton.html When the Sorting Hat offered Harry Slytherin House, that was Harry's temptation to evil. It's the house of "warped wizards", power & ambition. Harry chose instead to enter Gryffindor House with Ron & Hagrid. In that moment, he chose friendship & love over ambition & power - and that choice showed his essential goodness. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 14:06:59 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:06:59 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177610 Carol: > Having just quoted the available canon on Andromeda, I'm not going to > repeat myself. However, I certainly did not write the character I > presented. JKR did. Magpie: Yes, we all know what JKR wrote. She's a minor character is the point Adam made an I agreed with. There for half a page. Never presented as having anything to do with any storyline about Slytherin being redeemed. Carol: > I think that the inferences are justified by the canon. Nowhere do I > see any evidence that Andromeda was a bad person or that she resembles > her sisters in personality or values despite a superficial physical > resemblance to Bellatrix. Magpie: "Inferences justified by the canon" being the point. She's a totally minor character we don't spend time with, we make inferences based on some facts. Carol: However, she must be in > the story for a reason, and the only reason I can think of is to show > that not all Slytherins are evil. She's clearly a foil (in the sense > of a character who mirrors and contrasts with another character) to > both her sisters. (How nice that the good sister is the middle one and > not the youngest, in contrast to the tale of the three brothers, which > follows the standard fairytale formula of youngest equals best.) Magpie: I don't think she's there to be a foil much at all. If she were she ought to be in it more. I think she's in canon to create Tonks and the responses to Tonks. Three sisters, two of which have recurring roles, the other there mostly known as the wife and mother of characters we see most often. And while we can infer from one comment in book 5 that she was in Slytherin, she's never explicitly even linked to the house at all. Which doesn't mean she wasn't in it, but imo that obviously she wasn't set up to be some big important point about the redemption of Slytherin. She could be the nicest person in the world, she still doesn't seem like an important character in the story or a character very important to JKR, so no, I don't think she can represent some big point on that score. I doubt a casual reader is picking through the canon to build anything for her. She seems pretty good via inference. She may have been in Slytherin. I'm not denying these things. I'm saying I think Adam has a perfectly reasonably reaction in saying: Her? She's supposed to counteract all the negative Slytherins he sees? The one who is barely on page? Carol: > Add her to the list we already have: Snape, Regulus, Slughorn, and > possibly Phineas Nigellus as good Slytherins, Magpie: Adam listed all these people already and did not consider them particularly admirable people. Nor the Malfoys, nor Kreacher who isn't a Slytherin. Carol: > Carol, who said nothing at all about Andromeda as "poster child" > nineteen years later and notes that the future of Slytherin lies with > Scorpius Malfoy's generation Magpie: Except that's what Adam was rather asking for was a poster child for an admirable and likable Slytherin--which is why Snape and Regulus and Phineas and Slughorn and the Malfoys didn't suffice for him. I was starting from what he was asking for, agreeing that none of those people give it, and also agreeing that Andromeda is too minor to provide it even if she is it, which is what I thought he was saying. Especially since many Slytherins seem like they might be better if we only heard about them from afar, or wind up being less than one might have expected from what one knew. Scorpius Malfoy's generation also does not exist on the page, which gives them an advantage too. "Home of Warped Wizards" seems pretty apt. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 14:46:19 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:46:19 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177611 > Magpie: > Yes, we all know what JKR wrote. She's a minor character is the > point Adam made an I agreed with. There for half a page. Never > presented as having anything to do with any storyline about > Slytherin being redeemed. Jen: I tend to agree Andromeda isn't there to make a point about Slytherin so much as to make a point about choices. We've met Bella and Narcissa and know them fairly well by the time Andromeda is introduced, and only a few chapters prior Bella denies Tonks as part of the Black family: "She's is no niece of ours, my Lord!" (Chap. 1) Then when Andromeda is introduced, Harry believes her to be Bella for an instant because of the way she looks, only to realize she's 'different' i.e, she's made different choices for her life than her sisters even though they came from the same family and perhaps were all in Slytherin house. I expect Andromeda *was* in Slytherin but since JKR didn't make a big point about it, Andromeda for me fell in with Sirius as rejecting the Black family and its values (and getting burned off the tapestry/losing their family of origin to do so). From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 15:11:55 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:11:55 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177612 > Carol > I'm not sure what you mean by "Did the resolution work for you"? > Alla: > I am not sure what you mean asking whether resolution worked for me. > You mean that Lily shut the door in his face or something else? Jen: Guess I didn't make that part clear. ;) What I meant was something like: "Did learning more about Snape's and Lily's history together help you go back and understand Snape's worst memory in a new light? Did the worst memory still work well in the story knowing more information?" Margaret: > Now I realize why it's Snape's =worst= memory. Previously that had > puzzled me a bit, how a person who'd been a DE could have a > schoolyard humiliation in the top spot. But we only got the first > half of the memory in OotP, because that's when Snape interrupts > Harry (and now we know why Snape was so hot & bothered about > =that,= too!); the second half makes clear that the incident led to > a definitive break with Lily. Jen: Same here, why it was the Worst Memory. After OOTP others argued for seeing a connection between Snape and Lily because of how they acted in this scene. I didn't see it! Lily seemed to be doing the right thing in defending a student who was bullied, and Snape appeared angry she was doing so, especially since she was a 'Mudblood.' I argued something like, 'but why would he call the girl he secretly or openly loved that?!? And why would she retort back to him and call him Snivellus, his hated nickname?' I assumed at the very most Snape loved Lily but it wasn't returned. > Potioncat: > I think we could make a full tapestry if we started a few threads > about how different Snape scenes in the first 6 books play out with > information from book 7. And I would gladly weave along. Jen: Yes! Thanks to everyone for replying; I was very curious how others read the scene after new information in DH. Potioncat: > It had been suggested before DH that Snape's real pain in SWM was > that he called Lily a Mudblood and that it dashed any hopes he had > for a relationship with her. (Remember, at that time, we didn't > know they were friends.) Well, that seems to be the case. > But now that we know they were already friends, it doesn't make as > much sense. I understand that a boy doesn't want to be rescued by a > girl--but this is the WW! So, I could buy Severus's >discomfort if he didn't yet have a relationship with Lily---but it > doesn't ring true now. > His words were something along the line of "from a filthy Mudblood > like her." (I think.) Maybe that would sound more likely if we knew > other Junior DEs were in the crowd judging Severus's reaction. Then > his discomfort would have more to do with how his Slytherin friends > saw the situation. Jen: Right, it's "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her." Which is a pretty shocking thing to say to a good friend! Then Lily gets angry and says, "And I'd wash your pants if I were you, Snivellus." Uh! Snivellus? Anyway, that's the reason it wasn't clear to me they were actually friends in that moment after I read OOTP, or that Snape liked Lily, or that Lily cared for Snape as anything more than a student who was bullied. The new memories in DH still didn't explain the way they treated each other in that scene for me, although thoughts on this thread are interesting and I'm considering the moment again. :) Potioncat: > However, based on Snape's collection of memories, and accepting > this as canon, (like there's a choice?) I take it as it appears and > accept the outcome. Jen: Me too. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 1 16:10:48 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:10:48 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177613 > Jen: Guess I didn't make that part clear. ;) What I meant was > something like: "Did learning more about Snape's and Lily's history > together help you go back and understand Snape's worst memory in a > new light? Did the worst memory still work well in the story knowing > more information?" Potioncat: Again, from a half-baked position: In one brief flash of thought, I wondered if "all" the memories Snape removed prior to Occlumency lessons had to do with his relationship with Lily and with his vow to protect Lily's son. Are some of the ones he will give Harry at his death the same ones he removed here? Diverging a lttle, let's go to Slughorn's Christmas party. I wonder if Snape was concerned that Slughorn might say too much as he gushed on about Potions and Harry, Potions and Lily, Potions and Snape... From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 16:21:30 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:21:30 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <4700CD06.50009@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177614 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > But you're attempting to argue >from the conclusion to the premise. Yes exactly, but there is nothing wrong with that, mathematicians do it all the time. The conclusion is that Hermione has forgiven Harry, in fact she doesn't even think it's something that needs forgiving; thus the premise, that the Unforgivable Curse's name should be taken literally is incorrect. QED. > It is precisely the behavior of the > "good guys" in DH which is the point > of contention here I consider myself one of the good guys and my moral vision is clear enough that unlike you I feel no need to put it in quotation marks; but if I was in a war and had experienced half of what Harry had I would be one hell of a lot less gentle with the enemy than Harry was. I'm not saying that's anything to be especially proud of, but that's the way real flesh and blood people behave and I don't believe JKR would have written a better book if Harry acted like a cowboy in a white hat in a 1930's western movie or a Saturday morning cartoon superhero. Me: >> So, are you asking us to believe >> that Hermione hated Harry till her >> dying day? You: > If there were moral consistency between > DH and the rest of the series, yes, I > would expect it. Harry first used an "Unforgivable" in book 5 and then again in book 6, so you must think Hermione hated Harry for 2 books and then stopped doing so in book 7, and that you see as inconsistent. Being as polite as I can I must say I find that an odd way to view the books. Eggplant From starview316 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 1 16:24:55 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:24:55 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177615 > Carol: > However, she must be in > > the story for a reason, and the only reason I can think of is to > show > > that not all Slytherins are evil. > She's clearly a foil (in the sense > > of a character who mirrors and contrasts with another character) to > > both her sisters. (How nice that the good sister is the middle one > and > > not the youngest, in contrast to the tale of the three brothers, > which > > follows the standard fairytale formula of youngest equals best.) > > Magpie: > She seems pretty good via inference. She may have been in > Slytherin. I'm not denying these things. I'm saying I think Adam has > a perfectly reasonably reaction in saying: Her? She's supposed to > counteract all the negative Slytherins he sees? The one who is > barely on page? Amy: It'd probably be better to ask Adam himself about this, but I don't know what's meant by Andromeda's counteracting the negative Slytherins we see. In that she's supposed to be seen as a Slytherin whose pleasant and on the side of light because that's what she believes in? We don't know Andromeda, though. She's barely on the page. The little we have about her in canon indicates she did fine with her family until she married Ted Tonks, which put her on the outs -- for all we know, she followed the trend of the other Slytherins we DO know, and let love lead her away from the bad side, even if she kept a nasty personality. I don't see how this is supposed to make her less negative than the others, and I see even less why it should matter. The fact is that from the little we know of her, Andromeda IS firmly on the good side, by standards of canon and fandom alike. She's not seen negatively in the large scheme of things. Her personality has absolutely no bearing on this; yet from the comments of both Sirius and Slughorn, she was a Slytherin. > Carol: > > Carol, who said nothing at all about Andromeda as "poster child" > > nineteen years later and notes that the future of Slytherin lies > with > > Scorpius Malfoy's generation > > Magpie: > Except that's what Adam was rather asking for was a poster child for > an admirable and likable Slytherin--which is why Snape and Regulus > and Phineas and Slughorn and the Malfoys didn't suffice for him. I > was starting from what he was asking for, agreeing that none of > those people give it, and also agreeing that Andromeda is too minor > to provide it even if she is it, which is what I thought he was > saying. Especially since many Slytherins seem like they might be > better if we only heard about them from afar, or wind up being less > than one might have expected from what one knew. Amy: Probably best to ask this from Adam himself, but since you did say you agree, what's meant by admirable and likable -- someone who was admirable and likable by Harry etc.'s standards, or by fandom? If we're getting to fandom, I love Harry, but he's not always that likable or admirable -- by the same reasoning, I suppose, Snape has bajillions of fans who both like and admire him. If we're going by canon, the standards seem even more skewed -- who Harry likes doesn't automatically place them on the good side, and there are people Harry dislikes who are still on that side (ie, Phineas, Snape). If it's an issue of who made the right choices for the right reasons...even this doesn't seem to be a huge part of JKR's story for any characters. The Trio was ultimately fighting to bring down Voldemort, not mainly because of any fervent beliefs they had but because he was a danger to society in general. Of course they had certain beliefs -- persecution of Muggleborns was wrong, etc, but this right and wrong theme wasn't really a strong one throughout the book. It's disappointing that Draco didn't make a choice, but (and this isn't just for the Slytherins, it's for every character) this story wasn't about personal moral choices. It had a lot of other messages, but moral choices wasn't really one of them. So why should being admirable and likable put a Slytherin any farther above the Slytherins we do have, who all seem to play into JKR's larger message? Amy From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 17:01:56 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:01:56 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: <4700649b.02098c0a.0822.ffffa62d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sherry Gomes wrote: > > Alla: > > So, I had been saying all along and will continue to do so - that JKR > multiple math inconsistencies do not bother me one bit.... > Unless it will majorly put me out of the story. > > And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure that epilogue is set > up in 2007. Does it mean that Harry fathered his oldest at 15??????? OR is > epilogue set up later and I confused myself? > > > > Sherry: > > I believe the epilog takes place in 2017. Harry was born in 1980. He > defeated Voldemort in 1998. So, 19 years later would be 2018. I hope that > helps clear things up. Geoff: I hope that the 2018 is a mistype for the preceding 2017... Otherwise, since I wish to see my GCSE Maths classes producing the usual A grades I expect, pupils will be reporting to my dungeon after afternoon school, for extra Maths homework. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 17:09:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:09:45 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177617 Alla quoted from the Wizard of the Month section of JKR's website: > > > > Harry Potter > > (1980 - ) > > The Boy Who Lived, only known survivor of the Avada Kedavra curse and conqueror of Lord Voldemort, also known as Tom Riddle. Harry Potter joined the reshuffled Auror Department under Kingsley Shacklebolt at age 17, rising to become Head of said department in 2007. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > So, I had been saying all along and will continue to do so - that > JKR multiple math inconsistencies do not bother me one bit.... Unless it will majorly put me out of the story. > > > > And I am sitting here and blinking. I was pretty sure that epilogue is set up in 2007. Does it mean that Harry fathered his oldest at 15??????? OR is epilogue set up later and I confused myself? > > > > I have a suspicion that my math skills are much worse than JKR's > > Geoff: > I'm not entirely sure it is Maths skills which are at fault! > > Harry turned 17 very close to the beginning of DH and I reckon that the defeat of Voldemort took the action well into the following year of 1998. I rather doubt that Harry joined the Aurors on the following day so I suspect he must have been at least 18 before that happened. > > We have already calculated that the events of the epilogue occur in > the summer of 2017 when Harry is 27. > Carol adds: Actually, he would be 37, not 27, on September 1, 2017, so he'd have been about 24, possibly 23, when his older son, James, was born. (I do think it's significant that he's 37 in the epilogue, the same age age Lupin and Snape at the beginning of DH. He, Ron, and Hermione are living the normal life denied to MWPP, Snape, and Lily.) JKR has said elsewhere that Harry returned to Hogwarts to finish his education. If so, he could have joined the department at earliest at age eighteen, and, unless he's an exception to the rule, would have required three years of training after that. (Given his performance against Snape in HBP and his failure to master nonverbal defensive spells, I think he would need that training.) So, in 2002 at age twenty-one (almost twenty-two) he finishes his Auror training, and in 2007 at age twenty-six or twenty-seven (depending on whether he's had his birthday) he becomes head of the department, after only five years of actual experience. Maybe we should stop calling him the Chosen One and start calling him the Boy Wonder. (I know; the nickname is already taken.) Carol, who thinks that JKR is a little too fond of Harry and perhaps overestimating his abilities From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 16:23:16 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) Message-ID: <702829.56870.qm@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177618 Geoff: We have already calculated that the events of the epilogue occur in the summer of 2017 when Harry is 27. Pam: My math is worse than anyone I know, but I think Harry would be 37 if he was born in 1980, was almost eighteen when DH ended, and then a further 19 years had passed. My son is eight and he was born in 1998, and he made a big deal about being exactly the same age as Teddy Lupin. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 17:14:31 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:14:31 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177619 > Magpie: > Except that's what Adam was rather asking for was a poster child for > an admirable and likable Slytherin--which is why Snape and Regulus > and Phineas and Slughorn and the Malfoys didn't suffice for him. I > was starting from what he was asking for, agreeing that none of > those people give it, and also agreeing that Andromeda is too minor > to provide it even if she is it, which is what I thought he was > saying. Especially since many Slytherins seem like they might be > better if we only heard about them from afar, or wind up being less > than one might have expected from what one knew. > > Scorpius Malfoy's generation also does not exist on the page, which > gives them an advantage too. > > "Home of Warped Wizards" seems pretty apt. > > -m Prep0strus: My original point was to try to postulate what I thought Slytherin meant to JKR. It is undeniable that there are several Slytherin characters with a certain amount of depth and complexity. However, I still believe that SLYTHERIN, as a whole represents all that JKR thinks is wrong with the world. I wound up debating and defending my opinions on a lot of different characters, which doesn't matter in the end. To me, none of the slytherin characters rise to a level that is able to dispel my feelings on what the books show for slytherins as a whole. If any is ever remotely admirable, it is because they display traits that would allow them to be considered 'less-slytherin-like'. Now, if you don't agree with this, if you see goodness and equality shown in slytherin in comparison to the other houses this posting really wasn't for you. there are some that see slytherin sort of how i do, but then feel that there is a reverse prejudice going on, a kind of bigotry and hate that jkr allows from non-slytherin characters towards slytherin, and they consider this distasteful and wrong, but my opinion has been that, to jkr, slytherin is representative of the ideals that are, themselves, wrong. and so the message she is not that it is ok to look down on people with flaws, but that it is ok to look down on the flaws themselves. she does not support bigotry of a group of people, but she supports bigotry against bigotry. This was done in a flawed manner, because she DID make some slytherin characters that people care about and support. but overall, i think that is the justification for the way we see slytherin treated, because slytherin is this representative of all that is bad. Every DE was a slytherin, evil deed we have heard about was performed by a Slytherin, aside from Peter the traitor, and Grindelwald and Karakoff, who are outside the Hogwarts system. The house songs while concentrating on the positive for other houses concentrate on things with negative connotations for slytherin. When other houses join together, Slytherin is left out. Every character defined as slytherin has a preponderance of negative traits and a paucity of positive ones. i think this shows what jkr wanted to get across about slytherin. While one can try to assume facts in evidence to make the story more 'real' - thinking that there must be good, nice slytherins out there in the world, i think that if she wanted us to feel that way, she could have given us those facts. I see how someone can disagree with my conclusions, at several steps along the way. I just don't see how Andromeda can be used for that. Is someone really saying, 'Right, Adam, I see what you're saying here. Tons of evidence of Slytherin being JKR's way of representing everything she thinks is wrong with humanity - but you forgot about Andromeda! See, her presence in the books shows how slytherin really is good and equal. If she weren't there, i'd be with you, but obviously, now that i've reminded you of her, i'm sure you'll agree jkr made slytherin just as equal as the other houses'. She doesn't even state that Andromeda IS slytherin, despite our assumptions. And she barely exists for us to know her or for her to have meaningful action. If you want to appreciate her as a character, sure - i mean, i enjoy discussing James and he was dead before the series began. I just don't see Andromeda as a powerful enough presence to negate everything we are shown about Slytherin. Amy: Probably best to ask this from Adam himself, but since you did say you agree, what's meant by admirable and likable -- someone who was admirable and likable by Harry etc.'s standards, or by fandom? If we're getting to fandom, I love Harry, but he's not always that likable or admirable -- by the same reasoning, I suppose, Snape has bajillions of fans who both like and admire him. So why should being admirable and likable put a Slytherin any farther above the Slytherins we do have, who all seem to play into JKR's larger message? Prep0strus: I hope above I answered most of your first question (I was writing whilst you posted). As for admirable and likable... i don't know, I guess. By me? Because anything else, I guess i'd argue. Perhaps by general consensus? I don't agree with everything the 'good' characters too. but i think that overall, most of them are likable and/or admirable. More importantly, we can find members of the 3 'good' houses who fit these qualities with ease. and it is difficult to find members of those houses who would be defined as 'equal'. On the other hand, with slytherin, almost every evil act performed is performed by them, and i think it is difficult to find anything likable or admirable about them. I know the Snape lovers might jump down my throat for that - he shows admirable courage, they like his quips, but few deny that he is an unpleasant personality. And for me, that's how I see the other Slytherin characters as well. The original posts, as I said above, were not so much about individuals as about slytherin as a whole. however, people who feel differently as i hold up different slytherins as examples for why they don't share my opinion, and i'm simply explaining why those example slytherins don't do enough to make slytherin appear good or equal. I still think that despite some characters not being 100% evil, the house itself is meant to represent unpleasant characteristics of humanity - ambition without conscience, bigotry, and cruelty. To return a question to you - what do you think JKR's larger message is, that you refer to in your posting? Beverly: I don't know why I'm letting myself get drawn into this but I must ask, why is it so important for Draco to be the final and absolute example of a good Slytherin? His was not an abandoned storyline. He continued with his doubts about serving LV through the last book because of his love for his family, and the fact that he feared for their lives if he made a wrong move. Until the moment Voldemort died Draco and his parents were the objects of ridicule and derision from all of the DE. IE, he had to beg for his life from a fellow DE who pretended not to know him when Harry and Ron last saved his life. When was he supposed to make this big change? Until the final battle his parents were effectively hostages to LV. He was taking a risk by staying with Crabbe and Goyle and not returning to LV's side when Hogwarts was evacuated. Both parents feared for his safety immediately knowing this was not like him to endanger them more when LV was already using them as an example of what happened to DE when they him. The Malfoys were never away from LV since Lucius came out of Azkaban. I can't believe Draco would sacrifice his parents to become a good Slytherin at the last. Not even if he knew that's what some readers wanted. Prep0strus: It's how you read it. I felt like his storyline was abandoned in DH. I was very invested in HBP, and in DH, he felt forgotten, an afterthought. I disagree with your premise that in order to become a good slytherin he would have to sacrifice his parents. i have no idea how the story could have gone differently - the possibilities are endless. perhaps voldy was going to punish his parents for some failing, and in standing up for them, he fully rejects voldemorte, and at a later time finds himself allied with harry. perhaps harry saves his parents, turning draco. really, i don't know what i expected. I mean, i think i expected him to turn a little more good - not nice, not harry's 'friend' - but good. to recognize the consequences of his actions and feelings and adjust them, change somewhat. but really, i was expecting simply something MORE. he's been this constant presence for 5 books, then this real character with an important storyline, one of the ones i was most invested in in book 6, and then it just felt dropped. i felt that everything she was building to simply fizzled away. it's not the choices he made, but the lack of choices. or maybe the lack of us getting to see those choices. whichever, it was a disappointed. as for why it's so important he be the example of a good slytherin? that depends on the person you ask. but since there was no other example, he would be a good one, because he's young, and can represent the future. he's someone clearly raised wrong, who has terrible ideas implanted in his head - to see him change is to see the possibility of change for the future. to believe that the sins of the father don't have to become the sins of the son. it's a symbol of hope. but what we got, really, was simply a literary dropping of the ball. imo, of course. some seem to really appreciate what happened with draco. maybe hbp raised my expectations too high. Pippin: JKR showed us that her world does not end with death. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The doe patronus not only shows us that Snape doesn't live in complete misery, it promises something more than memory. Where Lily is, that's where his treasure, ie his reward, will be. Prep0strus: That's a pretty positive view. I don't know that we understand the ww afterlife all that well, but they seem to have some semblance of consciousness and consistency. Therefore, Lily is going to be spending her afterlife with james. i'm sure there will be forgiveness in the afterlife, but is snape really going to want to spend the afterlife following james and lily around? some have proposed alternate afterlives, in which snape can spend his eternity with lily, while she is also with james, but i think that diminishes her and her life and afterlife. lily can't be snape's reward - she will always torture him. and throughout his life, snape never made another friend, never loved another person. i don't know what the afterlife holds for severus, but i don't think his story is one of hope. his life held no hope, and unless he has learned to open himself up, I don't see his afterlife being very happy either. Pippin: Voldemort did not create House Elf slavery so why should we expect that his defeat will be the end of it? The House Elf slavery plotline does not go nowhere. It goes to there being two wizards who are believe in House Elf liberation instead of one. That's exponential growth. I was hoping for more for Draco and Snape myself, mostly because of The LIttle White Horse. But even in its own context, TLWH is a bit pollyanna-ish. And now it seems to me that if Draco or Snape had become friends with Harry, JKR would have lost something important, which is that people you don't like can be just as helpful as the people you do. Prep0strus: But just because Voldy didn't create something and his defeat doesn't change it doesn't mean the story can't address it. JKR created house elf slavery as an issue. she made it an obnoxiously large issue, in fact. and she let that storyline fall to the wayside like so many others. If the story was 100% about defeating Voldemort, you'd be right. But jkr created a story filled with subplots and ideas and possibilities, many of which she simply seemed to forget about in this book. One wizard to two? There may be even more than that. But it went from one ELF to none. Makes the whole issue a little moot. I don't think I ever thought Draco or Snape would be 'friends' with Harry. That doesn't mean I couldn't expect more from their storylines. And I don't think Draco was just as helpful as anyone harry liked by any stretch of the imagination. Phew. Sorry for the long post. maybe i should have broken it up. oh well. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 18:04:47 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:04:47 -0000 Subject: HatingDH / FamilyLoyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177620 > >>Catlady: > > Some people appear to be expressing an opinion that the book is not > merely not enjoyable to them, but that it is downright evil. Because > Rowling's portrayal of Slytherin House encourages people to be > prejudiced against entire groups of people instead of viewing them > as each individual. Because Harry casting a Cruciatis Curse without > feeling guilty or being scolded for it will make some readers think > that it's okay for them (because everyone is the good guy in their > own story) to use any means regardless of law or ethics. And other > reasons. > > And a lot of the posts saying that DH is an evil book give me the > feellng that the poster is saying that anyone who fails to dislike > such an evil book (such as me) is a bad person. Betsy Hp: As one who thinks the message of the books is evil (though I've finally decided it's unintentionally so; JKR is a sloppy thinker with a wobbly moral core, but not a horrible person in and of herself -- and I'm sure she'll be relieved to hear me say so ) the best I can do is assure you (and everyone) that I try very hard to *not* conflate the actual books with the readers. If it helps, my sister, my aunt and my grandmother all read and enjoyed DH. I've told them I disliked it. I did not go into why. For one, I don't want to ruin their reading experience, and for another, I don't want to give the impression that I think them evil for enjoying the book. I could not conclude the series without seeing how the story of Slytherin matched with propoganda written about the evilness of Jews, Africans, the Japanese, or really, any group cast in the role of scapegoat and sin eater. That's why I see this series as evil. But I also realize that those who enjoyed it do so *because* they *don't* see the connection. Which makes all the difference in the world. (I've heard arguments about the inherent racism in "The Secret Garden", one of my favorite children's books. I disagree with those arguments and so don't consider my love of the book as making me a racist.) > >>Catlady: > I probably am a bad person, as I read HP for entertainment rather > than for moral instruction... Betsy Hp: I know you're being facetious, but I wasn't looking for a moral lesson either. That such a hideous moral was inadvertantly folded in with what had become, to me, a boring story about people I cared little for is what pushed the series over from a simple personal disappointment to an "OMG, it's evil!!" reaction. (And I will say, just because *I* didn't enjoy the story doesn't mean I think no one should have enjoyed it. Just, I didn't.) > >>Catlady: > > But it seems there are a significant number of people in the > wizarding world who think that loyalty to family is more important > than loyalty to the Defense Association... > Betsy Hp wrote of the Defense Associaton in > : > << For me it was the loyalty to the group trumping loyalty to your > family. Any time an organization asks that of their followers, it's > a major, major warning sign to me that something twisted is going > on. And it's what most repulsed me about the Hitler Youth. >> > >>Catlady: > You must be one of the people in the first paragraph of my reply to > Pippin, immediately above. I hope you apply your principle to real > life groups of which I strongly disapprove that urge American > children to turn in their parents for marijuana possession, but > that's a digression. Betsy Hp: I might be and I do. > >>Catlady: > The real issue of discussion is, at what point does loyalty to > family get trumped? > Betsy Hp: I think this can be an interesting discussion. It's not one that the series ever entertains though, IMO. Which is too bad and I think an example of us fans deepening what was, in the end, a rather simple tale. JKR could have used Marietta's story (or Sirius's or Regulus's or Draco's or Percy's) to explore family loyalty and when (if ever) it should be broken and are there right ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. She didn't. Instead it came down to a personal cult allied to Dumbledore (and then Harry) that was the deciding factor. Were you breaking to stand with Dumbledore? Then it's good. If you were breaking to stand against Dumbledore, then it's bad. Which isn't very helpful as the real world doesn't have such easily identified markers of "good side" vs. "bad side", IMO. So I have to stick to a personal rule of thumb that if a group encourages you to be disloyal to your family, there's something hinky going on there and you may want to rethink joining. Betsy Hp (from the office *gasp!*) From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 17:58:29 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:58:29 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177621 > > > Jen: > > > I've got a question for a slow day: why *did* Snape call Lily a > > Mudblood? Also, I'm curious how others read Snape's Worst Memory > > given his new memories in DH. Did the resolution work for you? I'm > > on the fence about this part. > This is indeed an interesting aspect of Snape's character, his hidden xenophobia, for lack of a better term. I have thought alot about Snape, as anyone that has read my posts know. I think that there a few aspects of Snape to keep in mind: I think Snape comes from a breeding similar to Draco's, which is rooted in this xenophobic "racist" attitude. It may be that JKR wants us to remember that racism is taught not bred. So he is obviously drawn to Lily, but he can't escape who he is and where he is from. Not at such an early age. When you look at the way that Snape addresses Lily and how he reacts around her. To me one very important distinction should be made. Snape did not "love" Lily. He "coveted" her. In the same way that Judas coveted Jesus, which I think maybe a huge basis for the character (Snape=Judas), I don't know, b/c I still can't get a definitive archetype for the character. Anwyays, Snape covets Lily. He, I think, is the in love with the idea of being in love with her. Not truly having feelings for her. The Dali Llama says "True love exists when your love for one another overpowers your need for each other" and I don't think Snape ever makes that leap. Why else would he still have her Patronus? (please no need for script analysis of that line) So Snape coveting Lily is why he was able to demean her in such a big way. He never had true emotions of "love" for her. JP From starview316 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 1 18:27:18 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:27:18 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177622 > Prep0strus: > My original point was to try to postulate what I thought Slytherin > meant to JKR. It is undeniable that there are several Slytherin > characters with a certain amount of depth and complexity. However, I > still believe that SLYTHERIN, as a whole represents all that JKR > thinks is wrong with the world. Amy: I didn't see your first post on the subject, so that's why I was asking; thank you. I do agree with your overall view on how JKR sees Slytherin traits...you seem to agree that JKR doesn't seem to believe that they should be damned as a whole, which is probably my strongest dis-belief after DH, I'll explain why in a second. > Amy: > Probably best to ask this from Adam himself, but since you did say > you agree, what's meant by admirable and likable -- someone who was > admirable and likable by Harry etc.'s standards, or by fandom? If > we're getting to fandom, I love Harry, but he's not always that > likable or admirable -- by the same reasoning, I suppose, Snape has > bajillions of fans who both like and admire him. > > So why should > being admirable and likable put a Slytherin any farther above the > Slytherins we do have, who all seem to play into JKR's larger message? > > Prep0strus: > > I hope above I answered most of your first question (I was writing > whilst you posted). As for admirable and likable... i don't know, I > guess. By me? Because anything else, I guess i'd argue. Perhaps by > general consensus? I don't agree with everything the 'good' > characters too. but i think that overall, most of them are likable > and/or admirable. More importantly, we can find members of the 3 > 'good' houses who fit these qualities with ease. and it is difficult > to find members of those houses who would be defined as 'equal'. On > the other hand, with slytherin, almost every evil act performed is > performed by them, and i think it is difficult to find anything > likable or admirable about them. I know the Snape lovers might jump > down my throat for that - he shows admirable courage, they like his > quips, but few deny that he is an unpleasant personality. And for me, > that's how I see the other Slytherin characters as well. The original > posts, as I said above, were not so much about individuals as about > slytherin as a whole. > To return a question to you - what do you think JKR's larger message > is, that you refer to in your posting? Amy: Despite how many of JKR's messages got skewed in the actual story, I think every reader can safely agree that the overriding message of the HP books is supposed to be about love's all-conquering power; it's the message we're constantly beaten over the head with throughout the series, and steamrollered with in DH. Which is why I personally can't accept that JKR meant the only House whose (main) members we consistently see allowing love to hold them back from evil or whatnot, is meant to be the House of the damned (I realize you didn't call them "the damned", I'm talking more about the large outcry of JKR's painting Slytherin as unredeemed and Bad as a whole). I guess this is why I couldn't see why admirable/likable was being linked to who JKR meant us to see as Good. I agree that we don't know anything about Andromeda; all canon seems to indicate is that she got along fine with her family till she married Tonks, and for all we know, love held her back from being truly bad, like the others. That doesn't change the fact that, from canon perspective and (considering how many people here try to put her forth as an example of a Good Slytherin) fanon perspective, she's conclusively on the good side. Her personal beliefs don't seem to come into play, nor do anything else. For all we know, she's worse than Snape personality-wise. Slytherin as a whole is portrayed as nasty, unlikeable, and even evil, yet all the main Slytherins we've seen (except Voldemort) have allowed love to hold them back from villainy, etc: even Lucius is portrayed as contemptible and evil throughout the series, yet readers are still going to walk away from this series with the image of him broken at Voldemort's side, and running through the final Battle looking for Draco, rather than helping Voldemort out. Narcissa, Draco, Snape, Regulus -- I can't speak for people who try to put them forward as examples of people with pleasant personalities, but I can sort of see why they would constantly be put forth as examples of Good Slytherins, even though we never really get a sense of where they stand on things like Muggleborn-persecution and whatnot. A lot of people seem to see it as negligible that they're only motivated by love to act against (or NOT act for) Voldemort, as opposed to making a personal moral choice; considering the messages about love in HP were far more concise than ANY message about personal moral choice JKR may have made, I can't see it as so insignificant. Yeah, I think JKR condemns certain Slytherin personality traits, which is probably why the House members are all so unlikeable. I really don't think she condemns Slytherin House in itself, though, so in the larger picture, I can't see why it matters that they ARE unlikeable, given how subjective "likability" really is. Slughorn, for example, is probably the only Slytherin who was meant to be likeable (if not admirable -- I think it was Snape, who was meant to be admirable -- Harry at least admires him at the end of the series); most of fandom hates him, and why is this? His networking tendencies? (Networking, which is actually something Hermione apparently excels at, considering how she started the DA.) I can't argue that Slytherin aren't on a more unequal level than the other three Houses, but neither can I believe that this unequalness is as damning to all other future members of Slytherin House as others seem to think it is. Amy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 18:46:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:46:40 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177623 Eggplant wrote: > Harry first used an "Unforgivable" in book 5 and then again in book 6, so you must think Hermione hated Harry for 2 books and then stopped doing so in book 7, and that you see as inconsistent. Being as polite as I can I must say I find that an odd way to view the books. Carol responds: I realize that you're addressing Lee, but I hope you don't mind if I add a few words here. Hermione seems to judge curses by whether they're legal or not (in HBP, she condemns the Prince's spells as not being "Ministry approved," a rather odd condemnation after of Delores Umbridge's Ministry-approved DADA curriculum. Once the Ministry has been taken over by DEs, neither Ministry approval nor legality has any meaning, not to mention that she seems to feel, rightly or wrongly, that their danger combined with the urgent necessity of stealing the cup Horcrux (they will have no other opportunity) seems to justify the use of the Imperius Curse under those particular circumstances in HRH's view and, implicitly, in JKR's (readers, in contrast, will judge for themselves). As for Harry's attempts to use the *Cruciatus* Curse in OoP and HBP, one of which barely causes any pain because Harry doesn't "mean" it, doesn't "want to cause pain" and therefore "can't hurt [Bellatrix] for long"; the other of which is deflected by Snape before Harry can finish his curse, Hermione can't possibly know about them. She wasn't present on either occasion, and Harry doesn't recount his experiences in detail. In fact, he says as little as possible. (He doesn't state that Snape saved him from a Crucio, either, since that action conflicts with his view of Snape as a murderer and traitor.) Nor is Hermione present when Harry successfully Crucios Amycus Carrow, evidently enjoying inflicting pain on him, certainly "meaning" the curse. Whether Hermione would have approved his use of the curse or called it "gallant," we don't know. I, for one, hope not. I think it's likely, however, that she would have "forgiven" him, considering the themes of forgiveness and redemption that permeate the last few chapters of DH. She seems to "forgive" him for using another Dark curse, Sectumsempra, in HBP. (Granted, he didn't know what it did, but he was foolish to use it and it certainly wasn't "Ministry approved.") I agree with you, however, that Harry's Imperius Curses, at least, appear to be "forgiveable," as does Snape's Avada Kedavra, which you don't mention, even though the AK was certainly an illegal curse at the time it was cast. I also agree that the term "Unforgiveable" can't be taken literally or both Harry and Snape would be as irredeemable as Voldemort. Carol, not sure how Hermione came to be the spokesperson for what is and is not "forgiveable" unless she's being viewed as the voice of JKR (a doubtful proposition in this instance, IMO) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 1 19:30:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:30:36 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: <702829.56870.qm@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > Geoff: > > We have already calculated that the events of the epilogue occur in > the summer of 2017 when Harry is 27. > > Pam: > My math is worse than anyone I know, but I think Harry would be 37 if he was born in 1980, was almost eighteen when DH ended, and then a further 19 years had passed. My son is eight and he was born in 1998, and he made a big deal about being exactly the same age as Teddy Lupin. Geoff: My apologies. When I wrote this, I was thinking of the date when he became Head of the Auror Department - when he was 27 - and mentally confusing it with the epilogue date. So then, let's recap. 1998. Post mortem Voldemorti, Harry apparently joins the Aurors at the age of 17 or 18. This year, Harry becomes head of the Department at the age of 26 or 27. 2017. At the age of 37, the epilogue happens to Harry. QED From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 20:23:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:23:31 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177625 Prep0strus wrote: > My original point was to try to postulate what I thought Slytherin meant to JKR. It is undeniable that there are several Slytherin characters with a certain amount of depth and complexity. However, I still believe that SLYTHERIN, as a whole represents all that JKR thinks is wrong with the world. > > I wound up debating and defending my opinions on a lot of different characters, which doesn't matter in the end. To me, none of the slytherin characters rise to a level that is able to dispel my feelings on what the books show for slytherins as a whole. If any is ever remotely admirable, it is because they display traits that would allow them to be considered 'less-slytherin-like'. Now, if you don't agree with this, if you see goodness and equality shown in slytherin in comparison to the other houses this posting really wasn't for you. Carol responds: Yes, we understand what you're saying. Or I do, and I assume that others do as well. Certainly, it's undeniable that most of the Slytherins are physically unattractive (the Black family, the young Tom Riddle, and a few others being exceptions to this rule). It's also true that most Slytherins hold the view that purebloods are superior to Half-bloods and especially to Muggle-borns, but, again, the degree to which they hold this view varies. Snape repudiates it; Slughorn holds it but is willing to acknowledge with surprise that a Muggle-born can be a powerful witch. He is not, however, willing to join the DEs and commit genocide. Even the arrogant Blaise Zabini, who sneers at "Mudbloods" and "blood traitors," holds the DEs in contempt, as we see in HBP. You may disagree, but I think it's significant that out of a House of some seventy students for that House (using the 280 students calculable from the forty students per year implied in SS/PS and CoS, which would mean ten per class per year), only three in Harry's generation (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle) became affiliated with the DEs (despite at least one other student, Theo Nott, having a DE father), and of those three, one (Draco) became thoroughly disillusioned. Despite the implied association of Slytherin House with Dark magic, we don't see any Slytherin other than these three casting an Unforgiveable Curse (actually, we only hear of Goyle Crucioing students in detention; in the RoR, he just stands there pointing his wand). We have a total of one Slytherin in Harry's generation, who actually becomes evil. (Pansy's behavior is not admirable, but I would call it cowardice and self-preservation rather than an active allegiance with Voldemort. We don't hear of her escaping from sanctuary to fight on LV's side.) Harry, of course, also casts Unforgiveables (and Sectumsempra, after he knows it to be Dark magic). Draco uses a Hand of Glory and tries to use a cursed necklace, but he didn't curse the necklace himself. We hear that Mulciber (later an Imperius specialist) tried to use some unspecified Dark magic on a Gryffindor named Mary, but that and the accusation that the young Snape was interested in Dark magic is about as far as that association goes. The only truly Dark wizards associated with Slytherin are Slytherin himself (who feared Muggle-borns based on the superstitious behavior of Muggles in his time, and left a Basilisk in the CoS) and his descendant and heir, Tom Riddle, who came to school already capable of using magic to torture children and animals. In the interval between Slytherin and Riddle, we get the Gaunts (who apparently didn't even go to Hogwarts) and the Blacks (who beheaded house-elfs and believed in pure-blood supremacy), but we also get Slughorn, mildly prejudiced and certainly self-serving, but in the end fighting for the good side. (Portrait!Phineas, whose ideology is a product of his times, also works for the good side, supporting Slytherin headmaster Snape.) The influence of Tom Riddle leads some of his classmates to become the first DEs, and apparently, that legacy was passed on to their sons, but between Slytherin's time and his, all we get is an occasional fanatic who beheads house-elves or wants to make Muggle-hunting legal, not an all-out war against Muggles and Muggle-borns. Snape's generation is another matter. Starting with Slytherins the age of Bellatrix Black (supposedly born in 1951 though that doesn't fit with her being in the same gang as Severus Snape, born in 1960), Slytherin House becomes a dangerous place to be Sorted into. Lucius Malfoy (whose father Abraxas apparently was *not* a first-generation DE) and many others joined the DEs, influencing the younger students like Severus Snape (and Avery and Mulciber). Anti-Muggle-born prejudice and interest in the Dark Arts seem to have been intensified and channeled into the ambition to become a Death Eater, based on what we learn from Lily in "The Prince's Tale" but do not see first-hand. Unfortunately for Severus Snape in particular, the Dark Lord's first rise to power began just before he entered school, so that the older Slytherins he encountered, including Prefect Lucius, were already tempted to join the DEs. That dangerous period for Slytherin lasted long enough for the slightly younger Regulus Black and Barty Crouch Jr. (who may not even have been a Slytherin) to be seduced to join, but in 1981, with the defeat of Voldemort by a backfiring AK, that particular danger passed. *No new DEs were created between October 31, 1981, and Voldemort's restoration to his body at the end of GoF in June, 1995.* Indeed, we no of no new DEs created until Draco joins up or is recruited at the beginning of HBP (July 1996). And, as I said, only two others, Crabbe and Goyle, both the sons of DEs, became either DEs or active sympathizers ready and willing to turn Harry over to Voldemort for a reward. (Stan Shunpike, who may or may not have been a Slytherin and strikes me as a Hogwarts dropout, probably doesn't count as a new DE because he appears to have been Imperiused.) In short, blood prejudice does not in itself make a person a Death Eater. The elder Blacks were sympathizers but didn't join up. Phineas Nigellus (admittedly only a portrait) and Horace Slughorn ended up on the other side. Blaise Zabini, a typical Slytherin in terms of attitude, rejected the DEs. Andromeda Black, probably a Slytherin given the remarks by Sirius and Slughorn, became a "blood traitor" and actively aligned herself with the other side. Most Slytherin students sat out the battle. Conclusion: DE and Slytherin are not synonymous, nor are Slytherin and evil, as Harry learns near the end of DH. Until that point, we have seen from his perspective, so, of course, it *seems* as if Slytherin is synonymous with evil. And yet Slytherin also is associated with cunning, a trait that DD encourages in Harry and without which Severus Snape could never have survived, much less rendered DD such valuable service. Ambition, associated with Slytherin, turns out to be a trait of DD himself. If it was ever a trait in Snape or Regulus or Andromeda, they suppressed it and chose love or loyalty as their chief motive instead. It seems to me that Harry's missing glasses in "King's Cross" indicate that he can now see clearly. Among other things he can see (the truth about DD, for one) he can finally see at least some Slytherins, those he knows best, as people, flawed human beings like himself, some few of them as capable of love and courage (the virtues he most clearly understands and appreciates) as any Gryffindor. Prepostrus: my opinion has been that, to jkr, slytherin is representative of the ideals that are, themselves, wrong. and so the message she is not that it is ok to look down on people with flaws, but that it is ok to look down on the flaws themselves. she does not support bigotry of a group of people, but she supports bigotry against bigotry. > > This was done in a flawed manner, because she DID make some slytherin characters that people care about and support. Carol responds: Maybe not. Maybe she wants the reader to see what Harry sees, that it's *not* okay to lump a whole House together and regard them as evil, Dark Arts-practicing bigots. Maybe, by presenting a Slytherin or Slytherin supporter (Kreacher) as human (or humanlike, in the case of Kreacher), as sympathetic and flawed, capable of both error and redemption, maybe she's showing that Harry and his friends have been *wrong* in their judgment of Slytherin, as wrong as the Slytherins themselves in their advocacy of blood supremacy. Far from being a mistake, I think her depiction of the Slytherins (even to a slight degree, Bellatrix) as more human than Harry thought they were is a deliberate strategy, which begins in earnest with "Spinner's End" in HBP. Both Draco and the HBP (who turns out to be Snape) are presented sympathetically. Snape, come to think of it, was first presented sympathetically in OoP, which shows that he was right about James's arrogance and rule-breaking and that he's actually worse than Snape implied, a bullying "toerag." (Snape as an agent of the good side has been implied since book 1, but that's different from his being actually human and not just a mean teacher who has it out for Harry.) IMO, we readers, like Harry, are supposed to take off the blinders that made us see nothing but evil in Slytherin. Certainly, the House still has its faults, including a tainted history. But, finally, it has heroes as well, and a Head of House who seems humbled by his own small role in the rise to power of Riddle/Voldemort. I've already talked about the implications that I see in the epilogue. No, Slytherin is not yet fully equal to the other Houses, but the potential is there, the possibility of friendship between Gryffindors and Slytherins (echoing the original friendship between those two Founders before the issue of Muggle-borns at Hogwarts came between them). Obviously, Slytherin House has not been eliminated, but Voldemort has, and, along with him, Slytherin's line of descent. No more DEs can be created; the students sorted into Slytherin are in no danger of being tempted to join them because they no longer exist. JKR speaks of the House being "diluted," by which I assume she means that Muggle-borns can now be sorted into it, along with Half-bloods and Pure-bloods. That being the case, the whole pureblood superiority ethic should disappear (and certainly, passwords like "pureblood" would be eliminated). Mandatory Muggle Studies, taught by a competent teacher, could help eliminate the prejudice against Muggles that underlies the prejudice against their Muggle-born offspring. No Voldemort. No DEs. "Diluted" prejudice. Real Slytherin heroes. Harry Potter naming his second son after a Gryffindor and Slytherin together. Kids discouraged from becoming enemies even before they know each other based on House alone. If you don't see the hope for Slytherin and the deliberate change in its depiction and Harry's perception of it in the last two books, fine. I do. To each his or her own interpretation. Carol, who thinks that the presence of complex characters in Slytherin is not a mistake but an indicator of how JKR wants the post-DH reader to percieve the House (a view she could not suggest in early interviews without giving away the change she intended to present in Harry's perspective) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 1 20:18:34 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:18:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177626 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: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4, The Seven Potters The chapter begins the moment the Dursleys have left. Harry gathers Hedwig's cage, his Firebolt and his rucksack to wait for his escort. He thinks about the times he had been left alone in the past. He remembers sneaking food from the fridge, playing on Dudley's computer, watching television. "It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Harry is very pensive in this chapter. Hedwig is ignoring him as he walks around the house, reminiscing about things that happened in the past. He looks at the front door and remarks on Dudley's throwing up on the mat, and Dumbledore's visit last year. Harry shows Hedwig where he used to sleep and recalls the dream about a flying motorcycle. At that moment he hears a sudden deafening roar. His escort has arrived. The party consists of Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Mad-Eye, Fred, George, Bill, Fleur, Arthur, Tonks, Lupin, Kingsley, and Mundungus. There is a brief moment of chatter. We learn that Tonks and Remus are married. Mad-Eye gets right to the briefing. Pius Thicknesse has gone over. He had made it an imprisonable offense to connect this house to the Floo Network, place a Portkey or to use Apparition at the house. Moody feels it does nothing to protect Harry, but is designed to prevent the Order from taking him. Harry learns about the Trace, a charm that detects magical activity around under-aged wizards. The Ministry will know if a spell is cast near Harry. Therefore, Voldemort would know too. Lily's protection will break as soon as Harry turns 17 or as soon as he no longer calls Privet Drive home. A false lead has been set that Harry will be moved on July 30. However, Moody expects Death Eaters are watching the area. Twelve houses with some connection to the Order have been enchanted with protective spells, so that the Death Eaters won't be able to determine where Harry is being taken. Seven Potters each with an escort will fly to different safe houses, then Portkey to the Burrow. The specific houses mentioned are Moody's, Kingsley's, Tonks's parents', and Molly's Auntie Muriel's. Harry realizes that 6 of his friends plan to drink Polyjuice Potion to turn into him. He protests. Hermione says she told them he would react this way. Ron, Fred and George use humor to counter him. Moody threatens to use force and states that everyone is overage and all prepared to take the risk. Mundungus doesn't appear to be as willing. Moody says that the Death Eaters will be attempting to kill the guards, but to capture Harry. Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, Fleur and Mundungus drink Polyjuice Potion. The twins make a joke about being identical, though Fred thinks he's better looking. A few moments later Fred pretends to be George. Fleur thinks she looks hideous; Hermione comments on Harry's poor eyesight; Ron remarks that he knew there wasn't a tattoo. Most of them need to change into different robes. Harry is discomforted by the whole procedure and feels more modesty about his variously exposed bodies than the fakes do. Moody assigns the pairs: Moody/Mundungus, Arthur/Fred, Remus/George, Tonks/Ron on brooms; Bill/Fleur, Kingsley/Hermione on thestrals; and Harry is riding with Hagrid in a sidecar attached to Sirius's motorcycle. Moody chose the bike for Harry because he thinks the Death Eaters will expect Harry to be on a broom. He believes Snape will have told Voldemort everything about Harry. Hagrid recalls how small Harry had been the last time they rode it. Harry is embarrassed and feels like a child compared to the others. As soon as they are airborne they are surrounded by about 30 Death Eaters. Immediately Harry loses his Firebolt. Seconds later Hedwig is killed. Harry sees his companions under attack and calls for Hagrid to go back. Hagrid bellows, "My job's ter get you there safe, Harry!" Four Death Eaters are following Harry and Hagrid. Harry counters their attacks with Stunning Spells. The bike shoots out a brick wall, a net, and a burst of dragon fire. The sidecar is wrenched loose of the motorbike and starts to fall. Harry keeps it airborne until Hagrid swoops down and pulls him onto the bike. Harry casts a "Confringo" causing the sidecar to explode. By now there are only two Death Eaters in pursuit. Harry recognizes a blank-faced Stan Shunpike. Harry casts an "Expelliarmus" which reveals him as the real Harry Potter. The Death Eaters fly away. For a frightening few moments the bike is not pursued. Harry turns forward and urges Hagrid to go faster. Suddenly Voldemort appears. He is "flying like smoke in the wind" without a broom. Hagrid bellows in fear and flies into a vertical dive. Harry is firing at random. He hits one Death Eater, who falls. The bike is hit and spirals out of control. Another Death Eater flies near and Hagrid leaps off the bike to attack him. Voldemort closes in on Harry and begins the words, "Avada---" but Harry's wand shoots gold fire and breaks the wand in Voldemort's hand. Harry tries an "Accio Hagrid," but the bike speeds downward. Voldemort calls to the remaining Death Eater, "Your wand, Selwyn, give me your wand!" Just as Harry expects to be cursed, Voldemort vanishes. Harry sees Hagrid, spread-eagled on the ground, then crashes into a muddy pond nearby. Questions 1. There is a great deal of reflection in the beginning of the chapter, with some plot arcs coming full circle. How do the memories and events around Sirius's bike in this adventure compare with the events from SS/PS? Did any other of Harry's musings resonate with you? 2. Can you explain what Harry's feeling in this quote? "It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Does anyone remember how a very similar line was used before? Bonus points if you can find it. 3. Were you surprised by any of the team members--either at their inclusion or behavior? Why do you think Moody made the team this way? Why did JKR set it up like this? 4. Compare the makeup of this team with the Advance Guard from OoP. How is it different? How has the mood changed? Why isn't there a back- up squad for protection this time? 5. What do you think about Tonks's parents and Molly's Auntie Muriel providing safe houses? Are they Order members? 6. There are some laugh-out-loud jokes in the beginning of the chapter. Did anyone suspect the mood would change so quickly? What do you think of JKR's use of humor here? 7. Immediately after the Firebolt is lost, Hedwig is killed. Harry's attention is on the battle. Did the pacing of the story affect your reaction to Hedwig's death? How did you react to the results of the "Confringo"? Is there a literary reason for Hedwig's death and the loss of the Firebolt? 8. Moody's plan was based on the best information he had. But in what ways did his plan backfire? Which beliefs were wrong? Should Harry have been paired with someone else? How did the events in this chapter correspond to the information given in Chapter 1? 9. Did you remember that Voldemort was not using his own wand? What were your thoughts about Harry's wand acting on its own? 10. Were there any incidences of irony that you noticed at a re- reading? 11. Was the overall plot advanced beyond the events of the chapter? Did you see any detail that played into the story later? 12. Your question here: Potioncat would like to thank Carol and Susan for their help and suggestions. Any errors that remain are completely mine! ------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next chapdisc, chapter 5, Fallen Warrior: Oct. 15 From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 1 20:42:23 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:42:23 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message of the HP books? (was Re: Appeal of the story ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" wrote: [huge snip] > I had also expected that Moaning Myrtle would somehow play an > instrumental role in the defeat of her murderer and therefore be able > to finally leave her toilet and move on to "the next great > adventure." I was never comfortable with how Myrtle's misery was > presented as a joke. I mean, she's a little girl who was murdered! > Doesn't she ever get to rest in peace? But her situation never gets > resolved. [more snippage] I don't know whether this has been addressed by now, I'm obviously very behind in my reading (as usual), but I thought I'd point out that Myrtle *chose* not to rest in peace. She is not a miserable ghost because she was murdered. She was *determined* not to go on because she wanted to haunt a girl who made fun of her...Olive Hornby, I think it was. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 1 21:04:13 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:04:13 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177628 > Harry: "He took my blood." > DD: "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your > blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He > tethered you to live while he lives!" "His body keeps her > sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and > so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." > > This means that it is *impossible* for Harry to be killed by > Voldemort after he is reborn. > > > Allie > (who gets more confused the more she thinks about these things, and > is now so confused that she hopes some kind soul will help further > muddy the waters... um, clarify things) I'm not sure clarification is possible. I have, like you, thought and thought about it and become more confused as I have thought. It's a bit like watching the film 'The Illusionist'. Even after watching it a number of times I still can't see how he did some of the things he did. But he did them and the storu wouldn't have reached the end it did if he didn't. It would have been good if the Potterverse had enough internal consistency for the 'blood tie' to be explicable, but it doesn't seem to have. It was it seems a unique situation in Wizarding history, didn't Dumbledore say that Voldemort and Harry had travelled into realms of magic hitherto unexplored. So I am prepared to accept now that it happened, the story needed it to happen so it did. It must be umm Magic! I am also prepared for someone else to tell me that I just haven't understood it sufficiently. To quote the Indigo Girls, who I happen to be listening to, or should that be To whom I happen to be listening. 'There's more than one answer to these questions pointing me in a crooked line, The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine' allthecoolnamesgone From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 21:07:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:07:40 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177629 JP wrote: > > This is indeed an interesting aspect of Snape's character, his hidden xenophobia, for lack of a better term. I have thought alot about Snape, as anyone that has read my posts know. I think that there a few aspects of Snape to keep in mind: > > I think Snape comes from a breeding similar to Draco's, which is rooted in this xenophobic "racist" attitude. It may be that JKR wants us to remember that racism is taught not bred. So he is obviously drawn to Lily, but he can't escape who he is and where he is from. Not at such an early age. > > When you look at the way that Snape addresses Lily and how he reacts around her. To me one very important distinction should be made. Snape did not "love" Lily. He "coveted" her. > He, I think, is the in love with the idea of being in love with her. Not truly having feelings for her. The Dali Llama says "True love exists when your love for one another overpowers your need for each other" and I don't think Snape ever makes that leap. Why else would he still have her Patronus? (please no need for script analysis of that line) So Snape coveting Lily is why he was able to demean her in such a big way. He never had true emotions of "love" for her. Carol responds: I wish I had time to answer this post more fully. Let me just say that I disagree with it completely. First, Draco's and Severus's backgrounds are completely different. Draco's parents are rich purebloods who view themselves as "nature's nobility" and have indoctrinated their son with their views to the extent that he thinks "Mudbloods" smell and expresses the hope at age twelve that "the Mudblood Granger' will be killed by the Basilisk. (Draco does change in the books, but it's unclear whether his views on pureblood supremacy changed along with his views on Voldemort and death.) Severus, in contrast, has a witch mother who is probably though not canonically both a Slytherin and a pureblood. His father, however, is a Muggle, which makes Eileen a "blood traitor" in the Slytherin view if she is indeed a pureblood. Young Severus obviously doesn't think highly of Muggles (either his abusive father or Petunia), but he not only likes and befriends the Muggle-born Lily but hopes that she'll be sorted into Slytherin along with him. As for "coveting" Lily rather than loving her, the only evidence for that which I'm aware of is his "greedy" expression, which is used by the narrator before Snape's love and loyalty have been fully revealed and reflects Harry's perception (he still thinks that the boy he's seeing grew up to be the murderer of Dumbledore). Moreover, only when he's a child too young to feel anything resembling a desire to possess Lily in the sense of owning her (which is what covetousness implies) do we see that expression. Granted, *Voldemort* thinks that Snape "desired" Lily, but Harry corrects him. Snape loved her and wanted her to live, and when she died, he wanted to die as well. DD says that if he truly loved her, he'll protect her son so that she won't have died in vain, and he agrees to do so as long as no one knows the truth. The Patronus is not stolen from Lily or a sign that he covets her. A wizard doesn't control or choose his Patronus. Like Tonks', it reflects the person he loves. A Patronus is, as JKR says on her website, a spirit guardian, so, while Harry's spirit guardian is his father, Snape's is Harry's mother. His Patronus is beautiful and pure and powerful and innocent, reflecting his view of Lily, and I'd say that his ability to cast such a Patronus is a very strong indication of his redemption. Had it meant what you suggest, it would not have moved Dumbledore to tears. In contrast to the Bloody Baron, who murdered the girl he supposedly loved, Snape wants Lily to live even after she has married his rival and had that rival's child. (True, his love doesn't extend to James and Harry!) His remorse drives him, the Death Eater who revealed the Prophecy to LV, to turn in desperation to Dumbledore. When his intervention, begging Voldemort to spare her and asking for Dumbledore's help, fails to save her, he mourns Lily and for seventeen years and spends those same years atoning for his role in her death. I doubt that he would have done so had he merely "coveted" her. He would simply have taken LV's advice and found a pureblood woman "worthy" of him. Instead, he spends the remainder of his life working for Dumbledore, much of it lying and spying and placing himself in mortal danger. It begins with love of Lily but develops into something else, a kind of personal crusade to protect Harry and oppose Voldemort that extends to saving any life he can, whether it's DD's or Katie Bell's or Draco's. And at the end, he wants Harry to understand. Had he merely "coveted" Lily, there would have been no point in showing Harry that he had loved Lily, his guardian spirit "always," from the moment he met her until his death and perhaps beyond. Carol, who thinks that Harry's vindication speech and the name of his second son indicate clearly that he believed Snape's love of his mother to be real From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 21:37:44 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:37:44 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177630 --- "allies426" wrote: > > Deathly Hallows, 708, US: > > Harry: "He took my blood." > DD: "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body > with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's > protection inside both of you! He tethered you to > live while he lives!" "His body keeps her > sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, > so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for > himself." > > This means that it is *impossible* for Harry to be > killed by Voldemort after he is reborn. So except > for a few happy coincidences, the scene at King's > Cross could have happened any number of other times: > > ...snip examples... > > Why, then, did the rebounding curse rip Voldemort out > of his body when he attacked Harry in Godric's Hollow, > but merely knock him out for a few minutes in the > forest? ... > > In fact, if the blood protection is still in effect, > does that mean there was no way EVER for Voldemort to > kill Harry? That Lily's sacrifice endowed Harry > **forever** with protection from Voldemort's AK? ... bboyminn: I don't think this is cut-and-dried. That is, I think there is an intended element of confusion in it. The protections we speak of are very esoteric. They are embued with the mystery of magic that is little understood even by the likes of Dumbledore; who probably understood much much more than most. I also think this is true of the final confrontation. They are many factors at play all of which, some of which, or none of which may be relevant. Rather than say Voldemort can or can not kill Harry, let me say that I think it is possible for Voldemort to cause Harry's death, which is not quite the same thing. It is not impossible to kill Harry, just far more difficult that other wizard who do not have this special protections surrounding them. I think the circumstance under which Harry's protection is highest, and Voldemort's is the lowest, if a direct frontal killing-curse attack by Voldemort. As to the difference in reaction in the rebounding spell when comparing Godrics Hollow to the events in the forest, I can only speculate. In the events at Godrics Hollow, Lily's sacrifice was fresh and Harry was as innocent as it is possible for a human to be. In the forest, time has past, circumstances have changed. Harry is less innocent, and Voldemort's actions are not as fresh as Godrics Hollow. Plus, Harry fell into an almost-death, or a near-death. So, the rebounding curse, would not have ripped Voldie from his body as completely as in Godrics Hollow. In a sense, Harry's near-death and the 'death' of the Soul-Piece absorbed some of the impact. Instead of the full force of the AK rebounding back on Voldemort, it was more of a three-way split. So, both of them were thrown into this near-death limbo that Harry saw as Kings Cross Station. We don't know what Voldemort's experience was, but I don't think it was the same as Harry's. I think more likely, Voldemort cowered in the white fog that Harry initially saw, and stayed there. Either that or Voldemort was tormented by dark and ugly visions of death. I know I haven't really added much, but this whole subject is shrouded in mysterious elements of magic that virtually no one can truly understand. In summary, I don't think it is impossible for Harry to die, and I don't think it is impossible for Voldemort to cause Harry's death. I do think the circumstances under which Voldemort could directly cause Harry's death are rare and complicated. Like I said, I know that doesn't add much, but it's complicated. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 1 22:05:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:05:48 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177631 > Prep0strus: > That's a pretty positive view. I don't know that we understand the ww > afterlife all that well, but they seem to have some semblance of > consciousness and consistency. Therefore, Lily is going to be > spending her afterlife with james. i'm sure there will be forgiveness > in the afterlife, but is snape really going to want to spend the > afterlife following james and lily around? Pippin: If I understand correctly, that wouldn't be a problem with Christian concepts of the afterlife in which there is no marriage or giving in marriage. We are free to imagine that death frees Snape from his tortured longing for Lily, James from his jealousy of Snape, and all three of them from carnal love, as in many Christian texts. I can't imagine we are supposed to consider the beauty of the doe patronus, the comfort it brought to Harry and Ron, the fact that it led Harry to Gryffindor's sword which Harry sees as a cross, or that Snape actually bore that cross to the place where Harry found it, and think that Snape is supposed to be evil or without hope, or that his love for Lily was anything but what Harry called it: love. Snape wasn't entirely without friends or people that he cared for. The sudden movement at Harry's bedside in GoF seems to show that he was concerned for Lucius, his old friend now at the tender mercies of Voldemort. It humanizes Snape just as it humanizes Draco when we see him risk his life for Goyle. > Prep0strus: > But just because Voldy didn't create something and his defeat doesn't > change it doesn't mean the story can't address it. JKR created house > elf slavery as an issue. Pippin: The House Elf liberation subplot and the Dobby subplot each have a beginning, a middle and an end. That the endings aren't as hopeful as you expected is not the same as leaving them unfinished. > Prep0strus: . One wizard to two? There may be even more than that. But it went from one ELF to none. Makes the whole issue a little moot. Pippin: As I pointed out above, Dobby and House Elf liberation are separate plotlines. I'm not sure why Dobby's death should symbolize the death of hope for House Elf liberation. Dobby was already free. His life, no matter how long it lasted, had already proved that an Elf could successfully enjoy freedom. But he had no interest in freeing other Elves, so his death makes no difference to that. It isn't necessary for Elves to want freedom in order for wizards to see them as exploited. Ron's change of heart is the first glimmer of hope that a wizard who saw nothing wrong with the status quo could change his mind. Prep0sterus: > I don't think I ever thought Draco or Snape would be 'friends' with > Harry. That doesn't mean I couldn't expect more from their > storylines. And I don't think Draco was just as helpful as anyone > harry liked by any stretch of the imagination. > Pippin: If we had learned nothing about the Marauders after age seventeen, they wouldn't seem very likeable or helpful either. IMO, JKR first leads Harry to associate Slytherin House with everything hateful about human nature, and then allows him to learn that this was uncalled for. She doesn't show us Slytherins as saints or heroes, but she does show that neither Draco nor Snape is the embodiment of evil. That's Voldemort's job. All the Slytherins share some abilities with Voldemort. But as Dumbledore says, it's choices, not abilities, that show what we really are. All the Slytherins, even Bellatrix, made choices that Voldemort could never have made without becoming someone who wasn't Voldemort at all. The Draco of the epilogue is not someone we have to like. Judging by his son's name, he's still a proponent of winning through intimidation. He's made a pureblood marriage, so he probably still thinks purebloods are more respectable than other wizards. That would make him a jerk. But that's not the same as being evil. We don't see him starting race riots for a bit of fun, or plotting to open the Chamber of Secrets, or threatening members of the Hogwarts Board of Governors with curses if they don't do his bidding. He's not Lucius, IOW. We see Harry making the case that Slytherin is a respectable choice. That he makes sure Al knows it is a choice, that he doesn't have to go where the Hat sends him, could work both ways. After all, if Al *is* Slytherin material, he might well be concealing his Slytherin leanings in order to achieve his ends. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 22:21:07 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:21:07 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: Guess I didn't make that part clear. ;) What I meant was > something like: "Did learning more about Snape's and Lily's history > together help you go back and understand Snape's worst memory in a > new light? Did the worst memory still work well in the story knowing > more information?" Having examined this scene obsessively for about two years prior to the publication of DH, I didn't find it a surprise that Lily and Snape were friends. But I agree that it's weird for friends to act the way they did to each other and I had to do quite a bit of wanking on it to make it work. The key to me was seeing a "Lost" episode in which one of the characters, who sees her that her husband is about to become towards another character, pre-empts it by slapping the man herself. The helped me see why a Snape who was friends with, or in love with Lily might insult her in order to forestall what he saw as a threat from James and Sirius. Now, we know that James wouldn't ever hurt Lily, but he does mention hexing her and does try to blackmail her into dating him. From Snape's upside-down perspective, that could look like a threat. And Lily's shocked, angry reaction seemed somewhat plausible, had she been friendly with Snape as we knew him pre-DH. I thought that her tiny smile might be have come because she knew that he created the Levicorpus spell and was having it turned against him. Post-DH, it's harder to buy her reaction. Unless he's a lot better at hiding his insecurities than he seems to be in those memories. How can she not understand how desperately poor he is and how humiliated he is at that moment? It's hard not to go with the explanation that, while she was loyal enough to go help him in the first place, her overriding motivation is about James--and that she's been halfway to dropping Snape for some time. So, the minute it becomes difficult for her, she does. For me, the huge twist in all this is finding out that it took place after the Prank. But that's more about Sirius and James and less about Lily. Montavilla47 From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 22:30:53 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:30:53 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John Paul Smith" wrote: > When you look at the way that Snape addresses Lily and how he reacts > around her. To me one very important distinction should be made. > Snape did not "love" Lily. He "coveted" her. In the same way that > Judas coveted Jesus, which I think maybe a huge basis for the > character (Snape=Judas), I don't know, b/c I still can't get a > definitive archetype for the character. Anwyays, Snape covets Lily. > He, I think, is the in love with the idea of being in love with her. > Not truly having feelings for her. The Dali Llama says "True love > exists when your love for one another overpowers your need for each > other" and I don't think Snape ever makes that leap. > JP Leah: Just a couple of points to add to Carol's excellent response. Firstly, if Snape had only coveted Lily, he had plenty of opportunities as a potions genius and researcher in the Dark Arts to have her. Rowling shows us in Merope and Riddle snr that it is quite possible to use a love potion to bring about marriage and for the illusion to last as long as the potion is adminstered. We also get a hint that Mulciber, who we learn elsewhere in the books is an Imperious specialis,t doing something nasty to Lily's friend, Mary, with a definite sexual implication present. There is no canonical hint of Snape even dreaming of doing anything similar with or to Lily. Snape couldn't develop the love for Lily you describe, any more than James could have done had he survived GH, because Lily died young. But I think there is a positive side to the 'being in love with love' idea. I see Lily becoming something of a Beatrix to Snape's Dante, she is the inspiration for his growth into someone who watches die only those he can not save, Leah From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Oct 1 23:36:16 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:36:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47018470.5030505@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177634 eggplant107 wrote: > Random832 wrote: > >> all this is ignoring the fact that >> the characteristic pattern could >> very well be a spiral rather than a helix. > > No it could not. Steam rising in a characteristic spiral pattern is a > logical impossibility. Except it's rising from a potion. And, potions are - or so we've been told, magic. (and, yes, if it's in a spiral in a plane perpendicular to the surface, it's not _uniformly_ rising - but it can be rising in bulk). And, if you really want to get down to it, Steam (which is invisible) rising in any pattern that can be said to be characteristic of the substance (steam is pure water) that it's rising from is impossible anyway. But it's magic. You've painted your own picture of what the steam looks like and are saying "that's not a spiral", and blaming JKR for your possibly inaccurate picture. > If a spiral is rising then it's not a spiral > anymore, it's a helix. I draw a spiral on a piece of paper. I lift the piece of paper off the table up into the air - does this make what I have drawn a helix? > As I said before this is not a big deal, but if > I were JKR's editor I'd point it out and I'll bet she would be willing > to change that word. Or she could have told you "well, it's NOT a helix, it's a spiral." Or you could have recognized that to an audience of non-mathematicians, "helix" is nothing more than a fancy word for a type of "spiral". I certainly didn't visualize it rising in a helix. http://www.geocities.com/robinhuiscool/pics/Archimedian_Spiral.jpg Now, imagine that coming off the surface of a liquid, in 'steam' form (it's not steam, it's mist, but you decided to nitpick 'spiral' instead of 'steam') From edld48 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 23:32:44 2007 From: edld48 at yahoo.com (Edward) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:32:44 -0000 Subject: New Wizard of the month on JKR website and her amasing math skills ;) In-Reply-To: <702829.56870.qm@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177635 > Geoff: > > We have already calculated that the events of the epilogue occur in > the summer of 2017 when Harry is 27. > > Pam: > My math is worse than anyone I know, but I think Harry would be 37 if > he was born in 1980, was almost eighteen when DH ended, and then a > further 19 years had passed. My son is eight and he was born in > 1998, and he made a big deal about being exactly the same age as > Teddy Lupin. edld: At the start of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, he celebrates his 17th birthday. A full year had yet gone by, so I figure 17 his current age plus 19 years later would make him at least 36 That would put him at about 24 or 25 to have 2 children attending Hogwarts. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 00:07:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:07:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177636 potioncat wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4, The Seven Potters > > 1. There is a great deal of reflection in the beginning of the chapter, with some plot arcs coming full circle. How do the memories and events around Sirius's bike in this adventure compare with the events from SS/PS? Did any other of Harry's musings resonate with you? Carol responds: In SS/PS, baby Harry falls asleep over Bristol and in any case, doesn't know enough to enjoy the ride or fear his danger (chiefly falling). Hagrid was too big for the bike, which is still true, but this time, Harry is too big for the sidecar, a detail I found amusing on a first reading. Hagrid, of course, is oblivious to his discomfort. This plot arc is, IIRC, the first of many to come full circle in DH. I think that Hagrid's having the bike also answers the question of how he "flew" to the hut on the rock in SS/PS. As for other details that resonated with me, I just found Harry's nostalgia rather touching. He doesn't have many fond memories of the place, but he's reminiscing as if he did. He's leaving his childhood home, after all. I suppose there's an implicit contrast to Tom Riddle, who certainly would not have taken time to remember his experiences at the orphanage. ("Here's where I hanged the rabbit. . . .") I like the reminder of his dreams before he knew he was a wizard, a subtle way of taking the reader back along with Harry to the childhood he's about to lose forever. > > 2. Can you explain what Harry's feeling in this quote? "It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Does anyone remember how a very similar line was used before? Bonus points if you can find it. Carol: I have a feeling that *you* remember such a passage, but no bonus points for me. "Odd, empty feeling" is exactly the right phrase to describe times that will never come again, even if they're only the times he spent alone with the TV and computer and the fridge, but "a younger brother whom he had lost" suggests a more significant loss. At least he has *something* to miss, in contrast to the cupboard he slept in and Dudley's being sick on the doormat. (Okay. No marks for me on this one.) > > 3. Were you surprised by any of the team members--either at their inclusion or behavior? Why do you think Moody made the team this way? Why did JKR set it up like this? Carol: I don't think I was surprised by any team members except Mundungus. It felt right for Fleur, a TWT champion and soon-to-be Weasley, to be there. Moody probably chose as many people as he could find--the more "Potters," the less danger for Harry and the more confusion for the DEs. He pairs up people who can fly, with Bill and Fleur also together. Hermione/Kingsley seems like an odd pairing. Hermione can take care of herself even if she can't fly (and can't yet see Thestrals). Ron/Tonks is also odd. I suppose JKR didn't switch them around because she wanted at least one woman on a broom. Moody/Mundungus, of course, is a setup for what happens in the next chapter. > > 4. Compare the makeup of this team with the Advance Guard from OoP. How is it different? How has the mood changed? Why isn't there a back-up squad for protection this time? Carol: Well, obviously Emmeline Vance can't be there. Sturgis Podmore may have disgraced himself in Mad-Eye's view even though it's not his fault he was Imperiused and arrested. We never find out what happened to him after he got out of Azkaban. Elphias Doge is too old for such dangerous work and Dedalus Diggory and Hestia Smith are occupied with rescuing the Dursleys. Except for Mundungus, this team is composed of people personally loyal to Harry (even Fleur is grateful to Harry for "saving" Gabrielle), and most of them are young, strong, and eager, with a number of skilled flyers in case Snape has told LV about Harry's Quidditch skills. (I think LV would know about them anyway from Barty Jr. or the Malfoys.) There's no back-up squad because it's literally do or die the first time. They can't return to the Dursleys with a second team; the protective spell has been broken and there would be no point since Harry would already be gone. > 5. What do you think about Tonks's parents and Molly's Auntie Muriel providing safe houses? Are they Order members? Carol responds: They're relatives of Order members and Muriel is an old acquaintance of Elphias Doge's. Whether they're Order members or not, I don't know. They're not in the photo Moody shows Harry in OoP, so they weren't in the first Order. Maybe they're recent recruits who joined after the MoM battle or the death of Dumbledore. > > 6. There are some laugh-out-loud jokes in the beginning of the chapter. Did anyone suspect the mood would change so quickly? What do you think of JKR's use of humor here? Carol: I loved the humor, very much in character for everyone concerned. I can just imagine Harry seeing six copies of himself, some of whom he knows to be girls, changing in front of him in two senses. The Weasley's joke about being identical is poignant in retrospect; ironically, the last time they're identical, they're "Harry." JKR is clever and ruthless and knows her characters. She gives Harry a humorous send-off because the flight itself has so little humor in it. (I know I shouldn't have, but I laughed at the image of Harry in his blasted-off sidecar floating helplessly amid perils like a cartoon character, but other than that, the contrast between the first and second halves of the chapter is marked. It's as if the first half represents normalcy, the Order and Harry's friends and Hedwig and even Petunia's superclean kitchen as we know them. By the end of this chapter (and the next), nothing will be the same again. > > 7. Immediately after the Firebolt is lost, Hedwig is killed. Harry's attention is on the battle. Did the pacing of the story affect your reaction to Hedwig's death? How did you react to the results of the "Confringo"? Is there a literary reason for Hedwig's death and the loss of the Firebolt? Carol: Last question first: the death of Hedwig paired with the loss of the Firebolt is clearly a symbolic representation of the death of Harry's childhood. He's already said good-bye to the Dursleys and Privet Drive (small loss) and, he thinks, to Hogwarts. He's packed away his schoolbooks and Quidditch uniform and so forth. He's lost Dumbledore, his mentor for six years. Hedwig and the Firebolt are his last ties to that life. Unlike the motorcycle, which can be repaired and was never really his, Hedwig and the Firebolt are inextricably tied in with his discovery that he was a wizard and a natural Quidditch player, with Hogwarts and good times and the few joys of childhood that he experienced, and now both are lost forever. The Firebolt seems too insignificant to mourn (though its loss for me recalls his feelings when the Nimbus 2000 was smashed), but Hedwig has been his friend and messenger and faithful pet. Her sulkiness is just Hedwig wanting to fly again, and now she never will. I do think the pacing shaped my reaction--a gasp and "No! Not Hedwig!" with just a tear trickling down and no time to cry properly. I think I did actually cry for the "Confringo" and I knew what a pang it cost Harry. He never had a chance to mourn her because of the events that followed. I don't know whether Hagrid's "She had a good life" was any consolation at all. Poor Hedwig. She should have stayed with Pigwidgeon and Crookshanks, but she'd have wanted to fly free and would probably have been killed, anyway. Certainly, she could not have gone with them on the Horcrux hunt. > > 8. Moody's plan was based on the best information he had. But in what ways did his plan backfire? Which beliefs were wrong? Should Harry have been paired with someone else? How did the events in this chapter correspond to the information given in Chapter 1? Carol: I think (to jump ahead briefly) it was exactly the plan that Snape suggested to Confunded!Mundungus (Confundungus?), with some additional touches (the pairings and the means of transportation). I think there were more DEs than Mad-eye anticipated and I don't think he had any idea that LV himself would be there. Of course, putting Mundungus with anybody was dangerous for that person, but he might have survived if LV hadn't attacked. He couldn't have anticipated Harry's revealing himself through Expelliarmus or Harry's wand attacking LV of its own accord, which precipitated the hunt for the Elder Wand. I'm not sure about pairing Harry with someone else. Hagrid would still have tried out the gadgets on the motorcycle and whoever was with him would have been endangered. It might have saved Hedwig, but maybe the DEs were "killing" all the owls, real or stuffed, in hopes of getting a reaction ofut of "Harry" to see whether he was the real one or not. (If I were LV, I'd have suspected that the real Harry was with Hagrid, but maybe LV didn't know about their friendship or regarded Hagrid as such an oaf that he didn't think Mad-eye would trust Harry with him.) > > 9. Did you remember that Voldemort was not using his own wand? What were your thoughts about Harry's wand acting on its own? Carol: I remembered that he was using Lucius's wand, but I'm not sure what I thought about the wand acting on its own. I certainly didn't suspect the Elder Wand plot. Too bad the wand attacked the other wand and not LV himself. > > 10. Were there any incidences of irony that you noticed at a re- reading? Carol: Chiefly, the Weasley Twins no longer being identical and the wand's protection actually increasing Harry's danger by revealing to LV that he couldn't just use some other wizard's wand against Harry. I also think it's ironic that Expelliarmus, which Harry (and the rest of the duelling club) learned from Snape became Harry's signature spell. I'm not sure whether it's ironic, but I liked his trying to save Stan Shunpike even though that gesture of mercy revealed him to the other DE. > > 11. Was the overall plot advanced beyond the events of the chapter? Did you see any detail that played into the story later? Carol: On the surface, it's a highly dramatic and dangerous way to get Harry from Point A (the Dursleys', which he has to leave because the blood protection is ending) to Point B (the as yet unknown safe house). On a symbolic level, it's a loss of the last vestiges of his childhood, preparing him for the "adulthood" which will begin with his seventeenth birthday and the subsequent quest for Horcruxes. Obviously, it prepares us for the next chapter (which I won't discuss here) and the stories of the other "Potters" and their escorts, but it also introduces several surprises that will play a role later: Voldemort can fly without a broom, a wand can act of its own volition. We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see again and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with Dolores Umbridge. Snape's role in helping to arrange the plan is also set up through Mad-eye's statement that the polyjuiced Potters were Mundungus's idea. Harry's means of communicating with the Order, if he had planned to do so, are reduced by the death of Hedwig (but I suspect that they wouldn't have used her, anyway). Stan Shunpike's appearance doesn't really lead anywhere in relation to Stan himself, but it sets up the Expelliarmus motif which is important later in the book. > > 12. Your question here: > > Potioncat would like to thank Carol and Susan for their help and suggestions. Any errors that remain are completely mine! Carol: You're very welcome. I think you've done a fine job with the questions and I don't have any to add. Carol, looking forward to other people's responses to question 2 From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Oct 2 00:38:59 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:38:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47019323.6090300@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177637 lizzyben04 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin > wrote: >> bboyminn: >> >> >> I think people are over reacting to Slytherin House. >> Being sorted there does not guarantee that you will >> go on to be a Dark Wizard and live a life of crime. >> That's ridiculous in my opinion. >> >> Irene: >> >> But that's what the books strongly suggest. For example, in book > 2, when Harry is worried that he is too similar to Voldemort, and > Dumbledore talks about the choices that show who you are, he does > not say that Harry had chosen to be a good person (and would have > stayed a good person even if sorted into Slytherin). >> Dumbledore says that by the very action of actively choosing > Gryffindor, Harry has demonstrated his superiority to Vodemort. It > seems to suggest to me that going into Slytherin is by itself a > demonstration of evil predisposition, even before the child had > actually performed anything dark. >> Irene > > lizzyben: > > Dumbledore's words are reinforced by JKR as well: > > JR: New pupils at Hogwarts try on a talking magic hat. But Harry is > disturbed by what the hat tells him. > > JKR: What I'm working towards there is the fact that our choices, > rather than our abilities, show us what we truly are. That's brought > out in the difference between Harry and his arch-enemy, Tom Riddle. > In Chamber of Secrets, Harry is told by the hat that if he goes into > Slytherin house, home of warped wizards, he will become a powerful > wizard. He chooses not to do that. But Tom Riddle, who has been > twisted by ambition and lack of love, succumbs to the desire for > power. So basically, choosing slytherin, or not arguing with the hat if it wants to put you in slytherin, is "choosing evil" - i.e. it is an informed choice, at the age of eleven, to be a dark wizard for the rest of your life, despite that most of them (including harry - he has a vaguely unpleasant impression of ONE not-yet-slytherin) don't have a valid reason to believe that "slytherin = evil", and probably most would not try arguing with the hat (they go in not even knowing it's going to be a talking hat) From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 01:03:20 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:03:20 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470198D8.90109@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177638 eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 02/10/2007 00:21: > > But you're attempting to argue > >from the conclusion to the premise. > Yes exactly, but there is nothing wrong with that, In this case there is, because it is the conclusion which is precisely the point of dispute. If you wish to turn the point of dispute into a premise for your argument, you're building a peculiarly weak argument. Since it is the behavior of the good guys which is the issue under dispute, to use their behavior to prove their behavior amounts to a circular argument. > The conclusion is that Hermione has forgiven Harry, > in fact she doesn't even think it's something that needs forgiving; > thus the premise, that the Unforgivable Curse's name should be taken > literally is incorrect. QED. I believe Carol has already addressed this, but I'll repeat her points: A) does Hermione even know about Harry's UCs? B) "forgiving" implies the recognition of wrong-doing; and C) is Hermione the barometer of right and wrong in HP? > > It is precisely the behavior of the > > "good guys" in DH which is the point > > of contention here > I consider myself one of the good guys and my moral vision is clear > enough that unlike you I feel no need to put it in quotation marks; I was referring, of course, to the characters in HP, not you, and I put it in quotations because it is the debate point, as yet unproven. > I don't believe JKR > would have written a better book if Harry acted like a cowboy in a > white hat in a 1930's western movie or a Saturday morning cartoon > superhero. While I understand your point, I'd appreciate it if you didn't caricature my argument to make it. No one has argued Harry has to be perfect. My argument is as follows: In the first six books (well, books 3 to 6, at least), the morality of the Unforgivables is pretty cut and dried. Suddenly in DH, far from being Unforgivable, they appear to have morphed into the Not-Very-Serious Curses, judging by the triviality with which they're tossed around -- Harry Crucio-ing Carrow for spitting, or McGonagall Imperiusing him simply to retrieve a couple of wands, for example, when other, less ethically troublesome, spells would have served equally well. I'm not arguing over whether the Three *should* be unforgivable. That's JKR's choice. It's the inconsistency -- the disjunct -- between their portrayal in the first books vs. DH that is troublesome -- a disjunct which, as I pointed out some weeks ago, even my ten-year-old spotted a mile off. --CJ From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 2 01:08:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:08:28 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > Having examined this scene obsessively for about two years prior to > the publication of DH, I didn't find it a surprise that Lily and Snape > were friends. But I agree that it's weird for friends to act the way they > did to each other and I had to do quite a bit of wanking on it to make > it work. Pippin: I don't think it needs much wanking in the context of the poisonous atmosphere Voldemort was creating. It's like the breakup of Liesl and Rolf in The Sound of Music. Rolf couldn't resist the lure of Nazi propaganda, and his relationship with Liesl ended when she found that he had joined them. (Interestingly, the stage version contains a Snape-like redemption for Rolf, who secretly aids Liesl and her family to escape.) Snape's use of the M-word brought home to Lily how close to the young DE's he had become. We see that she's a little attracted to James in spite of herself, but I don't think James would have stood a chance if Snape hadn't alienated her by becoming a DE wannabee. Montavilla47: > Post-DH, it's harder to buy her reaction. Unless he's a lot better at > hiding his insecurities than he seems to be in those memories. How > can she not understand how desperately poor he is and how > humiliated he is at that moment? Pippin: Of course she understands, that's why she stuck with him so long. She could have forgiven him for the word, I think, but not for his refusal to take her concerns about the DE's seriously. Of course the connection between race-baiting and genocide which is obvious to us, and to Lily, would be more obscure to people in the WW for whom The Holocaust was as remote as goblin rebellions are to us. Pippin From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 01:42:14 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:42:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177640 Potioncat: > 2. Can you explain what Harry's feeling in this quote? "It gave him > an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like > remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Does anyone > remember how a very similar line was used before? Bonus points if > you can find it. KathyK: Ooh, ooh, there was this one from CoS: "And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten." (Ch. 13, The Very Secret Diary, Scholastic pbk p. 233-234) Potioncat: > 5. What do you think about Tonks's parents and Molly's Auntie > Muriel providing safe houses? Are they Order members? KathyK: I don't think they're Order members, just people the Order knows they can trust to be on their side. Potioncat: > 6. There are some laugh-out-loud jokes in the beginning of the > chapter. Did anyone suspect the mood would change so quickly? What > do you think of JKR's use of humor here? KathyK: I did think the mood would change quickly, since it seemed clear to me from Ch. 1 that LV would be going after Harry on Snape's information while they were trying to leave Privet Drive. I was happy with any humor I could get. Pretty much from the time LV attacked them to the end of the book, I felt very tense while reading DH. So I was grateful for any lighter portions I could get. KathyK, who plays *only* for bonus points and apologizes for the lame responses From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 2 02:01:03 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:01:03 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177641 > > Potioncat: > > It had been suggested before DH that Snape's real pain in SWM was > > that he called Lily a Mudblood and that it dashed any hopes he had > > for a relationship with her. (Remember, at that time, we didn't > > know they were friends.) Well, that seems to be the case. > > > But now that we know they were already friends, it doesn't make as > > much sense. I understand that a boy doesn't want to be rescued by a > > girl--but this is the WW! So, I could buy Severus's > >discomfort if he didn't yet have a relationship with Lily---but it > > doesn't ring true now. > > > His words were something along the line of "from a filthy Mudblood > > like her." (I think.) Maybe that would sound more likely if we knew > > other Junior DEs were in the crowd judging Severus's reaction. Then > > his discomfort would have more to do with how his Slytherin friends > > saw the situation. > > Jen: Right, it's "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods > like her." Which is a pretty shocking thing to say to a good > friend! Then Lily gets angry and says, "And I'd wash your pants if I > were you, Snivellus." Uh! Snivellus? > > Anyway, that's the reason it wasn't clear to me they were actually > friends in that moment after I read OOTP, or that Snape liked Lily, > or that Lily cared for Snape as anything more than a student who was > bullied. The new memories in DH still didn't explain the way they > treated each other in that scene for me, although thoughts on this > thread are interesting and I'm considering the moment again. :) > Julie: When I reread that scene, a couple more things stood out to me. One is that Lily asks James "What's he done to you?" and James replies "It's more the fact that he *exists*, if you know what I mean." (The word "exists" is in italics by the way, indicating James is emphasizing it, BTW.) Let's see, in this scene Snape and the Marauders have been at it for four and a half years, and Lily just now thinks to ask James why, and James just now comes up with his little gem of an answer? And of course no mention from either James or Lily that she and Snape even know each other, let alone are best friends. Then there is the even more disturbing moment after Snape tries to retaliate with the cutting curse (Sectumsempra or not) and James levicorpuses him upside down with his grey underwear on display. The crowd cheers, and Lily *whose furious expression had twitched for an instant as though she was going to smile* says "Let him down!" Lily, his *best friend*, thought it was funny seeing him humiliated in front of the school, even if she managed to hide it quickly. My original interpretation of her thought process was something along the lines of "Yeah, he really is a pathetic thing isn't he, and it's funny to see him hanging upside down with his skinny legs and exposed grey underwear. But still...two against one isn't fair, and my conscience won't let me stand for it." This is one of the things that made me assume Lily and Snape really didn't know each other. My other assumption was that Snape might secretly love Lily (given that he was under a great deal of stress when he called her "Mudblood", while she was really under none when she almost joined the other students laughing at him), but that Lily had no feelings at all for Snape. This was what I expected to be revealed if the LOLLIPOPS theory became a fact: that Snape loved Lily from afar. If someone had told me right after I'd first read this scene that Lily and Severus were actually best friends and had been for six or seven years, I would have laughed at the sheer unlikelihood of it. (I did post that they might have eventually developed a sort of friendship, but I assumed it would have happened in or after the sixth year--when Snape and Lily had Potions together and Snape wrote the notes in his Potions book--and presumably after the Prank, which I think almost everyone assumed came after Snape's Worst Memory. I just never once considered they might have had a childhood friendship, mostly because of this very scene.) > Potioncat: > > However, based on Snape's collection of memories, and accepting > > this as canon, (like there's a choice?) I take it as it appears and > > accept the outcome. > > Jen: Me too. > Julie: Yep, we don't have much choice in the matter. But I do think this was a bit of a cheat on JKR's part. She deliberately avoided any reference in that scene, or in any of the scenes where Harry talks about his parents to Remus or Sirius, to the friendship between Lily and Snape. She wanted to keep it a secret, and the only way to do so was to avoid and evade, even when it wasn't really reasonable within the plot. So she wrote SWM not with much thought to the consistency of the characterizations, but with the express intent of not giving away any real clues to what would be the biggest revelation in the final book. So it is. It's too bad though, because I wonder now if she (or anyone) could have pulled it off without basically cheating to get there. Julie From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 2 02:05:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:05:55 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: <47019323.6090300@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177642 > > >> Irene: > >> > >> But that's what the books strongly suggest. For example, in book > > 2, when Harry is worried that he is too similar to Voldemort, and > > Dumbledore talks about the choices that show who you are, he does > > not say that Harry had chosen to be a good person (and would have > > stayed a good person even if sorted into Slytherin). Pippin: How could Dumbledore promise that? He's not omniscient. If Harry had been sorted into Slytherin, then Dumbledore would have had to use another example to show that Harry has made choices that show he is different than Voldemort. For example that he wanted to find the Stone but not use it. As it is, Dumbledore can't speak to the choices Harry would have made if he'd gone into Slytherin because no one will ever know. Since Harry had not only survived the Dursleys uncorrupted but was toting around a fragment of Voldemort's soul without harm, it seems highly unlikely that Dumbledore thought that associating with Draco Malfoy or Marcus Flint would have ruined him. In retrospect it seems to me as though Dumbledore is simply pointing out that Harry is not doomed to make the same choices that Riddle made because he resembles Riddle, not that this choice more than any other proves he's not evil. > > lizzyben: > > > > Dumbledore's words are reinforced by JKR as well: > > > > JR: New pupils at Hogwarts try on a talking magic hat. But Harry is > > disturbed by what the hat tells him. > > > > JKR: What I'm working towards there is the fact that our choices, > > rather than our abilities, show us what we truly are. That's brought > > out in the difference between Harry and his arch-enemy, Tom Riddle. > > In Chamber of Secrets, Harry is told by the hat that if he goes into > > Slytherin house, home of warped wizards, he will become a powerful > > wizard. He chooses not to do that. But Tom Riddle, who has been > > twisted by ambition and lack of love, succumbs to the desire for > > power. Pippin: JKR is talking through the Harry filter here, IMO. Harry will learn that there are warped wizards who were not Slytherin and Slytherins who are not warped, like Slughorn and Regulus. Sirius never describes his brother as wicked -- he's "soft". I was disturbed by Dumbledore's "sort too soon" comment, which smacks of "mighty white of you, Severus." But in DH Dumbledore is no longer the 'epitome of goodness' (another example of JKR's Harry filter) -- we learn that Harry is the better man. Harry, the better man, does not tell Al that he is named for a Slytherin so brave he could have been a Gryffindor. He tells Al he will have a choice, but not that the choice of Gryffindor will mean that he is different than Voldemort. Oddly enough, by the end of the book it is Dumbledore who symbolizes the perils of cunning and too great a desire for power, while Snape has come to embody friendship and bravery. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 2 02:36:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:36:18 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177643 > Julie: > When I reread that scene, a couple more things stood out to me. > One is that Lily asks James "What's he done to you?" and James > replies "It's more the fact that he *exists*, if you know what > I mean." (The word "exists" is in italics by the way, indicating > James is emphasizing it, BTW.) Pippin: She knows that James rescued Snape from the willow, so she's not asking about their history, she's asking what Snape's done to provoke James into attacking him (this time.) She's not entirely sure that Snape didn't start something, IMO. Snape lets fly with his filthy mudblood remark and she retaliates with Snivellus wash your pants which is exactly tit for tat -- she calls him a name and impugns his cleanliness just as he did. Childish, but she is no more grown up than they are. There never was a time when it would have made sense for Sirius or Lupin to explain that Lily and Snape used to be on good terms. Slughorn seems to have known about it, if his mention of obsessive love is a clue, but he wouldn't have said anything if either Snape or Dumbledore had asked him not to mention it. I think Hagrid might have known something as well, but the same applies to him. I think it's significant that Hagrid and Slughorn are the two characters who find it hard to believe that Snape could have gone back to Voldemort's side. Pippin not feeling cheated From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 2 02:45:11 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:45:11 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177644 Pippin wrote: > I think it's significant that Hagrid and Slughorn are the two > characters who find it hard to believe that Snape could have > gone back to Voldemort's side. Potioncat: Yes, and I would very much like to see how they related to Headmaster Snape. I have the feeling from Minerva's comments, that Slughorn was not unfriendly toward him. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 04:50:30 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:50:30 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177645 > Pippin wrote: > > I think it's significant that Hagrid and Slughorn are the two > > characters who find it hard to believe that Snape could have > > gone back to Voldemort's side. > > > Potioncat: > Yes, and I would very much like to see how they related to Headmaster > Snape. I have the feeling from Minerva's comments, that Slughorn was > not unfriendly toward him. > Prep0strus: I have a feeling, at least in hagrid's case, it's more due to his devotion to Dumbledore and faith in his trust than in any innate faith in Snape. Of course, with Hagrid, he has trust and faith in many things that he shouldn't, so that trust, as well as potential for betrayal may always be present. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 14:32:47 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:32:47 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Wow, it's a slow list day! I've got a question for a slow day: why > *did* Snape call Lily a Mudblood? Also, I'm curious how others read > Snape's Worst Memory given his new memories in DH. Did the resolution > work for you? I'm on the fence about this part. > > Jen, playing kid chauffeur at the moment, waiting for a b-day party to > finish. > lizzyben: This scene actually does work for me & it makes sense from a psychological standpoint. As I was flipping through a psych book about "scapegoating" (regarding Slytherins), I came across an interesting theory - it's called Karpman's drama triangle. And this theory *perfectly* describes what happened in Snape's Worst Memory. >From Wikipedia: "Karpman drama triangle" - The drama triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction in transactional analysis ("TA") first described by Stephen Karpman ...The model posits three habitual psychological roles (or roleplays) which people often take in a situation: The person who is treated as, or accepts the role of, a victim The person who pressures, coerces or persecutes the victim, and The rescuer, who intervenes out of an ostensible wish to help the situation or the underdog. (Note that the rescuer role is one of a mixed or covert motive, not an honest rescuer in an emergency; see below) As the drama plays out, people may suddenly switch roles, or change tactics, and others will often switch unconsciously to match this. For example, the victim turns on the rescuer, or the rescuer switches to persecuting. Overview and theory: A "game" in Transactional Analysis is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are often characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end. The number of 'players' may vary. ... They are always a substitute for a more genuine and full adult emotion and response which would be a more appropriate response. ... In the Drama Triangle, the 'switch' is then when one of these, having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The victim becomes a persecutor, and throws the previous persecutor into the victim role, or the rescuer suddenly switches to become a persecutor ("You never appreciate me helping you!"). Note that the "game" position of Rescuer is distinct from that of a genuine rescuer in an emergency, such as a firefighter who saves a victim from a burning building or a lifeguard who saves a victim from drowning. When played as a drama role, there is something dishonest or unspoken about the Rescuer's attempts, or at best, a mixed motive or need to be a rescuer or have a victim to help. The rescuer plays the role more because they are driven to be a rescuer, than because the victim needs their involvement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle Why does the victim retaliate? "You notice that both the Persecutor and Rescuer are on the upper end of the triangle. Whenever we assume either of these stances, we come across as one-up. From either position we are relating as though we are better, stronger, smarter, or more-together than the victim. Sooner or later the Victim, in the one-down position, develops a metaphorical "crick in the neck" from looking up. Feeling looked down upon, resentment builds and some form of retaliation follows. At that point the Victim moves into a Persecutor role. Reminiscent of a not-so-musical game of musical chairs, all players sooner or later rotate positions." http://www.lynneforrest.com/html/the_faces_of_victim.html We can see this "game" perfectly in SWM. You need three people to play - a victim, a persecutor, and a rescuer. James is the persecutor, and he chooses Snape to be the victim, (perhaps w/the intent of luring Lily as the "rescuer"). James persecutes & bullies Snape, and Lily intervenes as the "rescuer". However, she has very mixed motives, and seems to relate to the persecutor more than the victim. Both "persecutor" and "rescuer" are on a higher level, presenting themselves as superior, stronger, better than the victim. This happens in SWM, as James & Lily seem to be on the same level as they bicker & flirt. Meanwhile, resentment builds in Snape, the victim, and he feels a need to escape his "victim" role - so he retaliates against the "rescuer" by calling her a mudblood. Now all the positions of the triangle have changed - Snape is the persecutor, Lily is the victim, and James is the noble rescuer. Lily then switches to persecutor to escape the victim role... and round & round they go. Snape seems to get involved in these sorts of triangles pretty often, which makes me think it was a pattern he learned from his dsyfunctional home life. It's also really, really interesting to me that the "Drama Triangle" is an example of scapegoating, considering how central that scapegoating concept appears to be w/regard to the Slytherins & Muggles. You could almost see all of wizarding society as one dsyfunctional drama triangle. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 2 14:57:57 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:57:57 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177647 > lizzyben: > > This scene actually does work for me & it makes sense from > a psychological standpoint. As I was flipping through a psych book > about "scapegoating" (regarding Slytherins), I came across an > interesting theory - it's called Karpman's drama triangle. And this > theory *perfectly* describes what happened in Snape's Worst Memory. Magpie: What a fascinating theory! It's funny because it totally goes along with something I've said for years, that I only now realize is exactly the same thing. I used to say that in the Potterverse there are essentially three types of people: bullies, victims and protectors from bullies. Only bullies and protectors are often the indistinguishable, and Victims grow into either one or the other. I thought this because it seems like power is just such a motivating force in this universe, the thing everyone dances around. It very much relates to the definition of courage as well--courage implies power in terms of power over onesself. In DH when they're under Voldemort's thumb the Malfoys mostly lack the courage to throw off the victim role, unlike courageous Neville who stands up to the DEs without becoming a persecutor. Harry ultimately "defeats" both his bullies by rescuing them--it's not like he experiences that with one and then also gets on the receiving end by being rescued by someone he hates. (That issue is sidestepped with Snape--Snape's story is immediately something to taunt Voldemort about--not because he's got any reason to care about Snape emotionally, but it shows he made a mistake.) That's a bit of a tangent, but anyway, yes, the books have always been obsessed with bullying and abuse. I would say the role of the Rescuer is elevated to the highest status, though I'm not sure if the mixed motivations are ever really acknowledged. What do you think? Because I find myself always very suspicious of mixed motives in this area, but I'm not sure if they're intentionally there. To use another obvious example of the obsession with this dramatic triangle, was Snape wrong for resenting James for saving his life? Was it just a sign of his immaturity? Because ultimately that's rather what it seems like to me, given what we ultimately learned about the Prank and the way Lily was portrayed. (And maybe even the way Harry's "saving people thing" was never really deconstructed and...well, a ton of other things.) We could probably get into Peter's death there as well. Harry saves Peter who doesn't deserve it, which means he owes him and gets killed later. I personally didn't see much remorse in Peter, but that seemed to be the way Harry insisted it worked: Peter ultimately did acknowledge Harry as his noble rescuer and so felt remorse. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 2 15:02:15 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:02:15 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177648 > lizzyben: > > This scene actually does work for me & it makes sense from > a psychological standpoint. As I was flipping through a psych book > about "scapegoating" (regarding Slytherins), I came across an > interesting theory - it's called Karpman's drama triangle. And this > theory *perfectly* describes what happened in Snape's Worst Memory. (snipping most of text for brevity) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle > > http://www.lynneforrest.com/html/the_faces_of_victim.html > > Snape seems to get involved in these sorts of triangles pretty > often, which makes me think it was a pattern he learned from his > dsyfunctional home life. It's also really, really interesting to me > that the "Drama Triangle" is an example of scapegoating, considering > how central that scapegoating concept appears to be w/regard to the > Slytherins & Muggles. You could almost see all of wizarding society > as one dsyfunctional drama triangle. Potioncat: Might explain where Harry gets his "saving people thing." Which would mean, if you're correct, Severus and Lily's friendship was dysfunctional as well--that is, on both parts. Where else do you see Snape involved in this type of triangle? Well, Snape as rescuer of Harry---oooh that really fits! But do you see it elsewhere? Now, really getting into this game (pun) Could Lily have been attracted to emotionally distant Sev because her father was such? and how does Petunia fit in? Lily played the rescuer, what role did Tooney play at home? Potioncat, not at all sure she should get into this..... From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 2 16:00:03 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:00:03 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <470198D8.90109@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177649 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > it is the conclusion which is precisely > the point of dispute. The conclusion is only in dispute if you think Hermione hated Harry until her dying day and at the end of book 7 JKR wants her readers to hate Harry and Snape. Are you certain you really want to defend that argument? > In the first six books (well, books 3 to 6, > at least), the morality of the Unforgivables > is pretty cut and dried. Well that is certainly untrue. The concept was not even introduced until book 4 and in that book we learn that the Ministry itself has routinely used those curses, and in book 5 and 6 Harry used them. In book 6 Snape uses the very worst of the "Unforgivables" but in the next book we learn that it was a noble thing to do and Harry has most certainly forgiven Snape for committing this "unforgivable" act. In fact other than the name (given by that paragon of virtue, the Ministry) JKR does not give us one scrap of evidence that the "Unforgivable" curses are indeed unforgivable, not one hint in 7 books. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 2 16:16:03 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:16:03 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: <47018470.5030505@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177650 Random832 wrote: > Steam (which is invisible) Huh? > rising in any pattern that can be > said to be characteristic of the > substance (steam is pure water) > that it's rising from is impossible > anyway. HUH?! > I certainly didn't visualize it rising in a helix. That my friend I simply do not believe. The word "helix" may not have sprung to mind but a helix is what you were visualizing. Eggplant From margdean at erols.com Tue Oct 2 16:37:14 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:37:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make. References: Message-ID: <470273BA.C7AE2C89@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177651 eggplant107 wrote: > > Random832 wrote: > > > Steam (which is invisible) > > Huh? That's right. Technically "steam" is water in gaseous form, and while it is in that form and at that temperature (over 100 degrees Celsius) it is invisible. You can only see it once it cools down and condenses enough to be actually water vapor. --Margaret Dean From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 2 17:10:19 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:10:19 -0000 Subject: Tom, Sev and Harry (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177652 > KathyK: > > Ooh, ooh, there was this one from CoS: > > "And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle > before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though > Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had > half-forgotten." (Ch. 13, The Very Secret Diary, Scholastic pbk p. > 233-234) Potioncat: Yes, the bottle of Felix goes to KathyK! Harry's memory as if he were thinking of a younger brother, seems to be his way of realizing how much he has changed. He is not the same person. But it is so close to the way he felt about the name TM Riddle in the diary. I wonder if this is just a case of JKR accidentally re-using a phrase, or if this is another of several comparisons she makes between Harry and Tom? I thought there was something similar about the HBP's text book, but this is the closest I can find. HBP chpt 24 (some snipping) "He felt stunned; it was as though a beloved pet had turned suddenly savage; what had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book?...Would he [Snape] confiscate or destroy the book that had taught Harry so much...the book that become a kind of guide and friend? Harry could not let it happen." To tie it together, sort of, we have Harry looking at BookTom and BookPrince as friends, and looking at his younger self as a brother. These are the three lost boys: Harry, Severus and Tom. It seems to be another bit that goes full circle in these first few chapters of DH. From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Tue Oct 2 17:13:00 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:13:00 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177653 Carol wrote: > I wish I had time to answer this post more fully. Let me just say that I disagree with it completely. Carol: I am willing to concede to several of the points you make as there are some things that I hadn't taken into consideration. I am going to go back and re-read that chapter to see if my mind changes. But before I do... But let us think about this. Granted Draco and Snape came from imperially different backgrounds, where then, would you think he (Snape) would get his outlooks from? His father had left, yes? So that only left his mother to teach him. If somehow he came to these thoughts about mudbloods, etc, on his own, well I just don't buy that; and that specifically was what I referring to when I was making the parallel between the two characters. However it's all speculation considering that we know so very little about Snape's family. I am going to still have to disagree with you on Snape's affections for Lily. In the long run, I just don't buy this idea of true love for his character. This is not to say that his emotions and affections weren't real, I especially think they were to him, you know? Here are some questions to ponder at work today (there are no right or wrong answers here, btw): 1) If Snape had this true love for Lily, would he have been able to do things he does in the book, during their teenage years and otherwise? 2) What was it about Snape that kept Lily at bay? If he truly loved her, and they were close like they seem to be, what would be turning her off about him? Is it his evil side popping out? 3) That brings us to an interesting question: Can evil people love? Its been said that Herman Goering was a devoted father and family man. 4) So assuming he did have this love for her, where were the turning points for him? When did he admit it to himself? When did things change? Was it after she died? It's these kinds of questions and discussions that, I think, make Snape such a compelling character. In my mind, he is one of the most original and compelling characters written in the last 15 years or so and I predict that we will see Snape-like characters popping up in literature in a few years or so; fyi that's the reason why I am on the listserve to see what other's think about this. I have also been wondering if there is a parallel that can be drawn between Lily and Hermione. If there is, then that makes Snape's reactions to her very compelling. See what happens Carol?! I was supposed to be studying and all of a sudden someone starts discussing ol' Sevy and I can't help myself!!!!! JP From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Tue Oct 2 17:22:37 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:22:37 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods in the DE!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177654 Hey everyone: I have a thought bugging me and I wanted to see what the ol' serve thought. I can't remember if we have talked about it before so I thought I would shoot it out and see what our collective noggins come up with; admittedly, I have to thank Carol for the idea from her well crafted response to my questions about Lily ad Snape (muchismas gracias, Carlita!!). Here goes: 1) What does everyone think of the fact that two of the highest ranking members of the DE (LV and Snape) are mudbloods? 2) How do you think this plays out and what type of commentary, if any, is JKR trying to make? Looking forward to replies! JP [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 18:01:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:01:11 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: <470273BA.C7AE2C89@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177655 Margaret: > That's right. Technically "steam" is water in gaseous form, and while it is in that form and at that temperature (over 100 degrees Celsius) it is invisible. You can only see it once it cools down and condenses enough to be actually water vapor. > Carol responds: But JKR is no more a scientist than she is a mathematician or a historian. The average person speaks of "clouds of steam" coming from a teakettle or steam engine as if steam were visible, and of "spirals" rather than "helixes" ("spiral staircases" having already been listed as a case in point). Hermione would have sounded pedantic if she had referred to "vapor rising in characteristic helixes." Or how about "helices," if we really want her to sound, erm, impressive and technically correct? Ugh. I'd rather that she sounded poetic than pedantic here, especially since the image created in the minds of most readers would be correct. Note that "spiral" as a verb is commonly used with "downward" or "upward": inflected Form(s): -raled or -ralled; -ral?ing or -ral?ling intransitive verb : to go and especially to rise or fall in a spiral course (Merriam-Webster online) I do think that JKR made some stylistic errors that should have been corrected by the copyeditor(s), as well as factual errors (Venus visible at midnight) and all sorts of inconsistencies. She has DD sepak of Tom Riddle as being in his sixteenth year when he's really already sixteen and therefore in his seventeenth year. She gives James's age as fifteen when it should be sixteen. She gives NHN an anachronistic Elizabethan ruff and, even worse, a Jacobean plumed hat, neither of which existed in 1492, when Henry VII, Elizabeth I's grandfather (and my least favorite English monarch) was king of England. If I were her copyeditor, I would have pointed out these problems and others (including "fug," which, word or no word, I would suggest changing to "fog"), but as purely stylistic choices, suitable for the average reader and especially for children, I would have left "steam rising in characteristic spirals," technically incorrect though it is, simply because it creates the right picture in the mind of most readers and sounds graceful and natural. Carol, noting that an author has the choice of accepting or rejecting a copyeditor's corrections and suspecting that JKR would have rejected the ones Eggplant is suggesting (and most of mine, as well) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 18:02:45 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:02:45 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Prep0strus: > > But just because Voldy didn't create something and his defeat doesn't > > change it doesn't mean the story can't address it. JKR created house > > elf slavery as an issue. > > Pippin: > The House Elf liberation subplot and the Dobby subplot each have a > beginning, a middle and an end. That the endings aren't as hopeful > as you expected is not the same as leaving them unfinished. Montavilla47: Just want to say that I never really looked at those subplots as being separate, but it makes total sense now that you point it out. > Pippin: > It isn't necessary for Elves to want freedom in order for wizards > to see them as exploited. Ron's change of heart is the first glimmer > of hope that a wizard who saw nothing wrong with the status quo > could change his mind. Montavilla47: Here's the part where I have a problem, because I *don't* see any change of heart here. The Ron who thinks about warning the House-Elves about the battle doesn't seem any different than the Ron who exposes Hermione's booby-hats in the common room so that the elves will have a choice about whether or not they want to become free. So, that moment all the culmination of the S.P.E.W. subplot fell flat for me. Even if it did have the big sloppy kiss that every Ron/Hermione shipper had been waiting for for seven books. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 18:08:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:08:11 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177657 Carol earlier: > > > I wish I had time to answer this post more fully. Let me just say that I disagree with it completely. > > "Carol:" (really JP) > > I am willing to concede to several of the points you make as there are some things that I hadn't taken into consideration. I am going to go back and re-read that chapter to see if my mind changes. But before I do... Carol: Really me this time. Just posting here to note that the comments apparently attributed to me are really responses by JP to my post. Carol, appreciating JP's offer to reconsider on rereading but hoping he'll forgive her for not answering the questions he raised, which lead into the realm of speculation rather than analysis of the text From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 18:31:20 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:31:20 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177658 > Potioncat: > Might explain where Harry gets his "saving people thing." > > Which would mean, if you're correct, Severus and Lily's friendship > was dysfunctional as well--that is, on both parts. > > Where else do you see Snape involved in this type of triangle? Well, > Snape as rescuer of Harry---oooh that really fits! But do you see it > elsewhere? lizzyben: With Snape, all *over* the place. For example, in the scene by the river w/Snape, Lily & Petunia: Snape & Lily are having a pleasent conversation, as he tells her about the wizarding world. He's playing Lily's rescuer there, a bit. Then Petunia enters, glares at Snape & insults his clothes (Persecutor). Snape becomes a victim, and then retaliates w/the branch. The roles switched - Now Petunia is the victim, Snape the persecutor. Lily becomes Petunia's rescuer, yells at Snape (persecutes)& stalks off. Snape is left looking miserable & confused (Victim). Lily accomplished the last switch in power w/o ever leaving her rescuer role. Hogwarts train ride: Sirius & James, persecutors; Snape, victim; Lily, rescuer ("let's go Sev"). The Rescuer has mixed motives, because being a rescuer itself is a position of power. The rescuer gets to feel important & superior, while also acting morally good. They are "one-up" in power from the victim. Rescuers can also persecute victims by withdrawing their care-taking (article above). This is what Lily does when she leaves Snape by the river, when she leaves him to Sirius & James' bullying in SWM, and when she closes the door on him in the last memory. JKR says that Lily genuinely loved Snape, & I wish I could believe it, but I just don't see it. I think she had a need to be a Rescuer, which forced Snape to occupy the Victim role. Or maybe it's the other way around. But either way, yeah, it was dsyfunctional. And of course, in the end, Rescuer Lily ultimately switched her loyalties from Victim to Persecutor. That was Snape's Worst Memory, & I understand why. Potioncat: > Now, really getting into this game (pun) Could Lily have been > attracted to emotionally distant Sev because her father was such? and > how does Petunia fit in? Lily played the rescuer, what role did > Tooney play at home? > > Potioncat, not at all sure she should get into this..... lizzyben: Once you see the roles of this particular "mind game," you can get really into it, because it honestly seems to be one of the major dynamics of the Potterverse. I disagree that little Severus was emotionally distant - in the early memories, he seemed incredibly needy & almost desperate for love. He didn't seem to care where he got that approval & "love" from - Lily or Mulciber - as long as they accepted him. And he seemed to accept ill treatment almost as his due. After he lost his major protector (Lily), he probably went staight to another (Death Eaters). Probably the saddest thing about Snape was his unrequited love for both Lily & Dumbledore - both of whom seemed to in some ways combine the roles of Persecutor/Rescuer, both of whom Snape seemed to relate to from a "one-down" Victim position. It seems like Snape started out in the "Victim" role & slowly migrated to the more powerful "Persecutor" role w/o ever finding a way out of the triangle. lizzyben From margdean at erols.com Tue Oct 2 18:39:54 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:39:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make. References: Message-ID: <4702907A.88CBAD55@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177659 Carol wrote: > > everyone has read> > > Margaret: > > That's right. Technically "steam" is water in gaseous form, and > while it is in that form and at that temperature (over 100 degrees > Celsius) it is invisible. You can only see it once it cools down and > condenses enough to be actually water vapor. > > > Carol responds: > > But JKR is no more a scientist than she is a mathematician or a > historian. The average person speaks of "clouds of steam" coming from > a teakettle or steam engine as if steam were visible, and of "spirals" > rather than "helixes" ("spiral staircases" having already been listed > as a case in point). Hermione would have sounded pedantic if she had > referred to "vapor rising in characteristic helixes." Or how about > "helices," if we really want her to sound, erm, impressive and > technically correct? I actually agree with you on both points, but I did have to chuckle a bit at the cavil about Hermione sounding pedantic. I mean, I love Hermione, but who in all of canon is =more= likely to be pedantic? :) --Margaret Dean, fellow pedant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 2 18:50:07 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:50:07 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > If I were her copyeditor, I would have pointed out these problems and > others (including "fug," which, word or no word, I would suggest > changing to "fog"), but as purely stylistic choices, suitable for the > average reader and especially for children, I would have left "steam > rising in characteristic spirals," technically incorrect though it is, > simply because it creates the right picture in the mind of most > readers and sounds graceful and natural. Geoff: I'm not sure where 'fug' occurs but what's the matter with it? It's freqently used in UK English and in my dictionary: fug > noun Brit. informal a warm, stuffy atmosphere From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 18:57:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:57:45 -0000 Subject: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177661 Montavilla47 wrote: > > Here's the part where I have a problem, because I *don't* see any change of heart here. The Ron who thinks about warning the House-Elves about the battle doesn't seem any different than the Ron who exposes Hermione's booby-hats in the common room so that the elves will have a choice about whether or not they want to become free. > > So, that moment all the culmination of the S.P.E.W. subplot fell flat for me. Even if it did have the big sloppy kiss that every Ron/Hermione shipper had been waiting for for seven books. Carol responds: the moment fell flat for me, too, but not for that reason. It seemed like an excuse for them to kiss (as opposed to hugging and holding hands, as they'd been doing throughout the book). I agree that Ron's view of house-elves doesn't seem significantly different in that he's not advocating freedom for house-elves. He is, however, concerned for "Elfish Welfare," and that, for me, seems to be the reason that Hermione kisses him. Here's where we disagree, and I doubt that I'll convince you because it's a matter of opinion or preference rather than interpretation of the text. I think that Ron is right and Hermione is wrong. House-elves, with the single exception of Dobby, don't want to be free. "Freedom" for them equates to being fired, to unemployment and misery--no home, no work, no use for their magic except to keep themselves alive (and not even a house-elf can conjure food, if it violates the Law of Whatever cited first by Hermione and then by Ron). House-elves *want* to work for wizards, to help them do what wizards either can't do or don't want to do. It's their nature. "We doesn't want paying, Miss. We wants gratitude and praise." Winky is loyal to her "master" even after she's "freed" (read "fired"). She's a "disgraced house-elf. The well-treated house-elves of Hogwarts are happy and respond gratefully to Ron's compliment, "Good service." Kreacher wants only to be understood and treated with kindness and respect. Once Harry understands that his true loyalty is to "Master Regulus," who *deserves* that loyalty, Kreacher is willing to serve Harry, call him "master," voluntarily clean himself up, and stop muttering about "blood traitors" and "Mudbloods." But his rallying cry and his locket show where his true loyalties lie. It's the Slytherin brother, Regulus, rather than the Gryffindor brother, Sirius, who understood and won the devotion of Kreacher. Hermione, it seems to me, comes much closer in DH to understanding the psychology of house-elves in DH than in earlier books, and her new understanding helps Harry to reach Kreacher's mind and begin to treat his views with something other than contempt. Apparently, house-elves follow their masters' loyalties and philosophies unless, like Dobby, they're so badly abused that they start thinking for themselves and viewing freedom as desirable rather than disgraceful. But Kreacher's loyalty is also personal and based on Regulus's courageous sacrifice. (Harry wrongly assumes that Regulus would have made Kreacher drink the poison; that he would drink it himself *for Kreacher* and that Kreacher would respond with almost fanatical devotion is a revelation to Harry.) Although we're not told explicitly that he thinks so, IMO, Harry realizes at this point that, like most house-elves, Kreacher doesn't want to be free; he just wants a master he thinks is worthy of being served. By respecting "Master Regulus" and giving Kreacher something that belonged to him (however briefly), Harry shows himself worthy (in Kreacher's eyes) of being Kreacher's new master. The house-elves of Hogwarts don't want freedom, either, but they don't want the abuse they'll suffer if Voldemort and his followers win. (We saw how the Malfoys treated Dobby, which was worse than Sirius's neglect of and contempt for Kreacher. I'd rather not imagine what the Carrows would do to a house-elf.) They're not going to leave Hogwarts en masse looking for "freedom" and paid employment after the Battle of Hogwarts. I'm quite sure they'll happily go back to bedmaking and cooking, having helped to defeat their would-be oppressors. Anyway, I don't think that Hermione kisses Ron because he's come around to her view that house-elves should be freed. She's just happy that he's expressed concern that they might be killed by the DEs like Dobby (DH Am. ed. 625). Obviously, he's right to fear for their safety (though he's underestimating their power and feistiness). IMO, he's also right in the view he expresses earlier (GoF) that they shouldn't be freed against their will. Doing so would be like firing all the factory workers in nineteenth-century England to "free" them from oppressive working conditions rather than improving the working conditions and letting them retain their jobs. Carol, happy that SPEW played such a small role as it was always, in her view, a well-intentioned but wrong-headed idea of the "Hermione knows best" variety From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 19:02:49 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:02:49 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John Paul Smith" wrote: > 1) If Snape had this true love for Lily, would he have been able to > do things he does in the book, during their teenage years and > otherwise? Montavilla47: I don't see how having a true love for somebody can prevent you from making other kinds of mistakes in your life. But I'm also not sure what you mean by the "things he does in the book"? For example, if you mean killing Dumbledore, I don't how loving someone would prevent you from killing another person (leaving aside the whole thing about Dumbledore asking him to do it). So, I guess the short answer is "yes." > 2) What was it about Snape that kept Lily at bay? If he truly loved > her, and they were close like they seem to be, what would be turning > her off about him? Is it his evil side popping out? Montavilla47: Honestly? It might have been mostly the Death Eater thing, but I feel like Lily is jumping the gun a bit here. Snape's friends weren't Death Eaters. They were Death Eater wannabes, and I can't imagine that any Death Eater pep squads were allowed at the school Albus Dumbledore was running. Although perhaps Pureblood claptrap was--given how Slughorn talks. But I think part of it was that, as JKR tells us, Lily was a "popular girl." Popular girls don't stay popular if they hang around with "greasy little oddballs." Her line about making excuses for him shows that she was under social pressure to drop him. > > 3) That brings us to an interesting question: Can evil people love? > Its been said that Herman Goering was a devoted father and family man. Montavilla47: I think the answer to that involves turning the question around. It's not that evil people love or not, it's that even people who love can do evil things. Including genocide. > 4) So assuming he did have this love for her, where were the turning > points for him? When did he admit it to himself? When did things > change? Was it after she died? Those questions are really left up to the reader to decide, I think. Which is nice, because it lets us have a chance to imagine our own Snape stories! Montavilla47 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 2 19:09:08 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:09:08 -0000 Subject: Muggleborns in the DE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177663 "John Paul Smith" wrote: > 1) What does everyone think of the fact that two of the highest ranking > members of the DE (LV and Snape) are mudbloods? Potioncat: Riddle and Snape are both Half-bloods. Both of their fathers were Muggles and both mothers witches. Muggleborns are witches or wizards who have two Muggle parents. DEs often use the word Mudblood for Muggleborn. While there's no hard rule about it, as far as I know, it's convention hereto avoid using the word Mudblood unless there is a particular reason to. Silly, but so is placing the fork on the left of the plate. As for your question, I think JKR left what must have been a source of conflict for Snape off the page. It's hard to imagine there wouldn't have been some stubbing. Although I've seen an argument that Snape may have been able to keep his blood status a secret. I guess that's up to the fan to determine. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 19:34:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:34:36 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177664 Potioncat wrote: > > Might explain where Harry gets his "saving people thing." > > > > Which would mean, if you're correct, Severus and Lily's friendship was dysfunctional as well--that is, on both parts. > > > > Where else do you see Snape involved in this type of triangle? Well, Snape as rescuer of Harry---oooh that really fits! But do you see it elsewhere? > > lizzyben: > > With Snape, all *over* the place. For example, in the scene by the > river w/Snape, Lily & Petunia: Snape & Lily are having a pleasent > conversation, as he tells her about the wizarding world. He's > playing Lily's rescuer there, a bit. Then Petunia enters, glares at > Snape & insults his clothes (Persecutor). Snape becomes a victim, > and then retaliates w/the branch. The roles switched - Now Petunia > is the victim, Snape the persecutor. Lily becomes Petunia's rescuer, > yells at Snape (persecutes)& stalks off. Snape is left looking > miserable & confused (Victim). Lily accomplished the last switch in > power w/o ever leaving her rescuer role. > > Hogwarts train ride: Sirius & James, persecutors; Snape, victim; > Lily, rescuer ("let's go Sev"). > > The Rescuer has mixed motives, because being a rescuer itself is a > position of power. The rescuer gets to feel important & superior, > while also acting morally good. > Once you see the roles of this particular "mind game," you can get > really into it, because it honestly seems to be one of the major > dynamics of the Potterverse. > > I disagree that little Severus was emotionally distant - in the > early memories, he seemed incredibly needy & almost desperate for > love. He didn't seem to care where he got that approval & "love" > from - Lily or Mulciber - as long as they accepted him. And he > seemed to accept ill treatment almost as his due. After he lost his > major protector (Lily), he probably went staight to another (Death > Eaters). Probably the saddest thing about Snape was his unrequited > love for both Lily & Dumbledore - both of whom seemed to in some > ways combine the roles of Persecutor/Rescuer, both of whom Snape > seemed to relate to from a "one-down" Victim position. It seems like > Snape started out in the "Victim" role & slowly migrated to the more > powerful "Persecutor" role w/o ever finding a way out of the > triangle. Carol responds: Unless you count his role as "Rescuer" and protector of Harry, seen most clearly in his (genuine) rescue of Harry from the DEs in HBP (not just from the Crucio). He can't help retaliating when the victim (real victim) he's rescuing misunderstands his intentions and starts taunting him, becoming the "persecutor." So Snape, who can't admit his real role, intentions, and loyalties, stops deflecting curses and actually delivers some sort of Stinging Hex at Harry, becoming the "Persecutor" until Buckbeak, as "Rescuer," forces him into the "Victim" position again. And I suppose we could bring in his "mean teacher" role as another attempt to put himself at the top of the power triangle. I don't think he ever sees *Lily* as his "Persecutor," even when she retaliates with "Snivellus" and the nasty remark about the underpants. I think he wants them to be friends and equals--or maybe to retain his position as her mentor and protector (himself in "Rescuer" position?). At any rate, he didn't want *her* as his rescuer. That was more humiliating than the public bullying (which does not, I think, reflect what would have happened in a fair fight, one-on-one). Anyway, it's an interesting approach to Snape's internal power struggle, but it ignores his feelings for Lily, whom he seems to have viewed (rightly or wrongly) as good and innocent and pure, the dazzling and beautiful doe of his Patronus. I'm not sure about the "unrequited love" of Snape for Dumbledore. In GoF, DD shows real concern when snape goes off to return to LV on his orders. He trusts Snape even before the Patronus incident and defends him to Harry and the Order members. He shows real gratitude, and, I think, affection, in "I am fortunate, very fortunate, that I have you, Severus" (DH Am. ed. 681). So while we can partially explain the Snape/DD relationship as DD being Snape's "Rescuer" (and occasional "Persecutor" when Snape first comes to him for help and again after Lily dies), and DD allows Snape, in turn, to play "Rescuer/Persecutor" to Harry, that paradigm doesn't fully explain their relationship, which, IMO, involves real human emotions, not just mind games and manipulation. We could easily explain the whole Gryffindor mentality, from James's imaginary raised sword to Harry's "saving people thing" to Hermione's attempts to solve every problem without consulting anybody to a strong desire to be the "Rescuer" mixed with a less conscious desire to be the "Persecutor" (James's bullying, Harry's desire for revenge against Snape, Hermione's various forms of retaliation (the jinxed parchment, blackmailing Rita Skeeter, attacking Ron with conjured birds). Ron switches roles as well, though when he becomes the rescuer, he really does rescue Harry (after Rescuer!Snape has provided the means to do so). Doesn't work for the Twins, though. I don't see them as "Rescuers," just entrepreneurs who use themselves and other people as guinea pigs ("Persecutors" who don't realize they're playing that role?) Carol, who likes her Snape complicated and doesn't want to reduce him (or any other character) to a formula or paradigm From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 20:02:19 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:02:19 +0800 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4702A3CB.4070704@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177665 eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 03/10/2007 00:00: LK> it is the conclusion which is precisely LK> the point of dispute. Egg> The conclusion is only in dispute if you think Hermione hated Harry Wrong discussion. I wasn't referring to Hermione/Harry, but to your argument that the Unforgivables must not be so bad because they were used by Good Guys in book 7. Since the use of Unforgivables by Good Guys in book 7 is precisely the point of dispute, it cannot be used as a premise for your argument. LK> In the first six books (well, books 3 to 6, LK> at least), the morality of the Unforgivables LK> is pretty cut and dried. Egg> Well that is certainly untrue. The concept was not even introduced Egg> until book 4 You're correct, of course. Mea culpa. The above should read "books 4 to 6". Egg> and in that book we learn that the Ministry itself has Egg> routinely used those curses Routinely? Per Sirius, use of the UCs was authorized during VWI, but I see nothing about "routine" use by the MoM. But then you argue yourself that the MoM is hardly a paragon of virtue, so I'm not sure how they suddenly become a bellweather for non-wrongness of the UCs. Egg> and in book 5 and 6 Harry used them. He attempted to use them, and largely failed, save for a bit of discomfiture for Bellatrix. But in each case he was driven by rage and a desire for revenge -- against Bellatrix for killing Sirius, and against Snape for killing DD. I hope you're not suggesting revenge exonerates illegal acts. Egg> In Egg> book 6 Snape uses the very worst of the "Unforgivables" but in the Egg> next book we learn that it was a noble thing to do See above re: book 7. And speaking of putting things in quotes, there are no quotes around Unforgivables in HP that I've seen. Egg> and Harry has most Egg> certainly forgiven Snape for committing this "unforgivable" act. Bully for Harry. How is that relevant? Egg> In fact other than the name (given by that paragon of virtue, the Egg> Ministry) JKR does not give us one scrap of evidence that the Egg> "Unforgivable" curses are indeed unforgivable, not one hint in Egg> 7 books. "Other than the name"? Silly me for assuming the name of the things was relevant. Why call them Unforgivable (and without quotes) if that's not what she meant? Just to mislead her readers? But whether or not the MoM coined the name is irrelevant. It was, as near as we can tell, the name universally adopted and applied throughout the WW (certainly we're told of no other name for them). Whether the MoM was a paragon of virtue in general or not, on this particular point, the WW would seem to be in near universal agreement. I've been combing through the HPforGrownups archives, been to numerous websites discussing the UCs, and as far as I can see, prior to DH the vast majority of HP fandom simply accepted the label at face value (not even you, AFAICT, suggested otherwise). All this attempt to throw quotes around Unforgivable or dismiss it as MoM politicking bears the earmarks of a post facto attempt to redefine the UCs in light of their very different portrayal in DH. (I'm open to correction on this; the HPGU archives are huge(!) and I've almost certainly missed a lot. But I believe my general assessment is correct.) All of which speaks to my earlier point viz. reader expectations. --CJ From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 20:33:53 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:33:53 -0000 Subject: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Montavilla47 wrote: > > > > Here's the part where I have a problem, because I *don't* see any > change of heart here. The Ron who thinks about warning the > House-Elves about the battle doesn't seem any different than the Ron > who exposes Hermione's booby-hats in the common room so that the elves > will have a choice about whether or not they want to become free. > > > > So, that moment all the culmination of the S.P.E.W. subplot fell > flat for me. Even if it did have the big sloppy kiss that every > Ron/Hermione shipper had been waiting for for seven books. > > Carol responds: > > the moment fell flat for me, too, but not for that reason. It seemed > like an excuse for them to kiss (as opposed to hugging and holding > hands, as they'd been doing throughout the book). > > I agree that Ron's view of house-elves doesn't seem significantly > different in that he's not advocating freedom for house-elves. He is, > however, concerned for "Elfish Welfare," and that, for me, seems to be > the reason that Hermione kisses him. > > Here's where we disagree, and I doubt that I'll convince you because > it's a matter of opinion or preference rather than interpretation of > the text. I think that Ron is right and Hermione is wrong. Montavilla47: I agree with you completely. I also think that Ron is essentially right in his position and Hermione is fundamentally wrong. That's why I don't like the moment. Hermione's acting like Ron made some big change of heart, when he didn't. He was *always* concerned about Elfish welfare. For example, he was concerned enough to fight Hermione when she wanted to force the elves into her idea of what was best for them. Which makes a fascinating cross-over to that discussion about the Karpman Drama Triangle over in the Lily/Snape thread. Here we have Hermione trying to shoehorn the elves into a victim role so that she can rescue them. Then, when Ron lets her know that the elves don't need rescuing, she tries to put him into the persecutor role. Which he isn't interested in playing, either. Once again proving that, insecurity issues and all, Ron is the poster child for Mental Health in the Potterverse world. Maybe that's why she drops the SPEW thing in HBP. No one will play with her. Even Draco, who is usually good for a round of prosecuter/victim, is too wrapped up with other stuff to play. Montavilla47 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 21:37:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:37:12 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177667 > >>Pippin: > How could Dumbledore promise that? He's not omniscient. > If Harry had been sorted into Slytherin, then Dumbledore would have > had to use another example to show that Harry has made choices > that show he is different than Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: But he didn't. I mean, Harry didn't sort into Slytherin and so Dumbledore was never forced to figure out another way to show Harry that Harry was naturally a good boy. So the "Slytherin equals sinner; Gryffindor equals blessed" short-hand to understanding the characters of Potterverse works. I feel like you're kind of building up a straw man with this sort of argument. Using a scenario that never occurred to suggest that the scenario that *did* occur wasn't as meaningful as all that. This is a work of fiction. Harry being sorted into Gryffindor was meaningful because that's how JKR wrote it. Heck, she even highlighted it. IOWs, Dumbledore doesn't have to be omniscient because JKR, as author, is. I strongly suspect that a Harry who'd sorted into Slytherin would have created an entirely different story wherein Dumbledore *would* have worried that Harry was going down Tom Riddle's road. But this is all whimsey and may-have-beens. Harry did not sort into Slytherin, he sorted into Gryffindor, hence Dumbledore's confidence that he was going to be a-okay. > >>Pippin: > > Since Harry had not only survived the Dursleys uncorrupted but was > toting around a fragment of Voldemort's soul without harm, > it seems highly unlikely that Dumbledore thought that associating > with Draco Malfoy or Marcus Flint would have ruined him. Betsy Hp: The power of Harry's pure blood protected him from all that. And a *sign* of Harry's personal purity was that he chose Gryffindor over Slytherin. It's all of a piece. Because that's how JKR designed it to be. Otherwise, she'd have selected, or had Dumbledore point out other ways in which Harry had shown his inate goodness. It's not the power of Draco Malfoy or Marcus Flint. It's not so small as that. It's the overall sin that Slytherin, as a house entire, holds. Evil is in their very stones, I guess you could say. It can be "diluted" (weakened, I suppose?) but it will never be pure. At least, that's the impression I was left with. > >>Pippin: > > Harry, the better man, does not tell Al that he is named for a > Slytherin so brave he could have been a Gryffindor. He tells Al > he will have a choice, but not that the choice of Gryffindor will > mean that he is different than Voldemort. Oddly enough, by > the end of the book it is Dumbledore who symbolizes the > perils of cunning and too great a desire for power, while > Snape has come to embody friendship and bravery. Betsy Hp: And yet, the kid's name is Al. Short for Albus. So I think you're projecting here. Snape was shown to be brave. I doubt he's supposed to actually *embody* bravery. He's just a Slytherin who managed to scrap a bit of Gryffindor goodness into his twisted, Slytherin soul. A wizard Al's never heard of going by the conversation he and Harry have. (I rather suspect Al's heard about Dumbledore.) Also, where does friendship get related to Snape? He obsessed over Lily to an alarming rate, but friendship? I don't recall that at all. I think using Dumbledore to symbolize cunning and ambition is reaching too. Again, the boy's first name is "Albus". Also, while Harry went through moments of doubt, in the end he trusted in and followed Dumbledore's plan. Even though it seemed to mean his own death. I guess I'm not sure where I'm supposed to see Harry repudiating Dubmledore to such an extent, Snape becomes the better wizard in his eyes. I'm also not sure where the reader is supposed to pick that message up. Betsy Hp From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Oct 2 21:37:23 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:37:23 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) Message-ID: <20071003073723.CUP11540@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177668 Montavilla47: > > > So, that moment all the culmination of the > S.P.E.W. subplot fell > > flat for me. Even if it did have the big sloppy > kiss that every > > Ron/Hermione shipper had been waiting for for > seven books. Sharon: Why does everyone assume that Ron is a sloppy kisser? That seems to come across in a lot of fanfic as well. Is it because Ron is a bit of a softie? Why isn't Harry a sloppy kisser? I don't think Draco kisses anyone in the books, but in fanfic he is always a masterful kisser -- why is that? I guess it all has to do with character? Ron's character is very emotional and insecure and he is a fool for Hermione, but there is nothing in canon about him being a bad kisser. Lavender definitely seems to like it! :-) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 2 21:41:09 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:41:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177669 Potioncat: > 1. There is a great deal of reflection in the beginning of the > chapter, with some plot arcs coming full circle. How do the > memories and events around Sirius's bike in this adventure compare > with the events from SS/PS? SSSusan: All I know is I had a big grin on my face when that motorbike reappeared. "So *that's* how she's gonna use it again," I thought to myself. :) > Did any other of Harry's musings resonate with you? SSSusan: Well, definitely *not* the rug where Dudley threw up. Urgh. > 3. Were you surprised by any of the team members--either at their > inclusion or behavior? Why do you think Moody made the team this > way? Why did JKR set it up like this? > 4. Compare the makeup of this team with the Advance Guard from > OoP. How is it different? How has the mood changed? Why isn't > there a back-up squad for protection this time? SSSusan: I was concerned about the inclusion of Mundungus for sure. (Proved right on that one, darn it.) I wondered why he had to be used. No Dedalus or Hestia Jones? No Charlie Weasley, returned home to fight? (Where the heck *was* Charlie in this book anyway?) It didn't seem all that likely that Dung was the only option. Interesting question about there not being a back-up squad. > 6. There are some laugh-out-loud jokes in the beginning of the > chapter. Did anyone suspect the mood would change so quickly? What > do you think of JKR's use of humor here? > 7. Immediately after the Firebolt is lost, Hedwig is killed. > Harry's attention is on the battle. Did the pacing of the story > affect your reaction to Hedwig's death? SSSusan: I *loved* Fred & George in this scene. The "We're identical!" line was one of the best JKR ever wrote, imo. Obviously, going into the task at hand -- getting Harry safely out, and after what we know of the discussion at Malfoy Manor about what they know/suspect -- things were not going to stay that light for long, but no, I was NOT prepared for Hedwig's demise (sniff), especially coming up so quickly. Even the loss of the Firebolt and what we shortly find out about Mad- Eye's death felt incredibly rapid-fire and hard to take in. I know there was a point in that, that this is exactly what happens in war, that losses occur quickly, without warning, with no time to process them, but it was hard to take. > 8. Moody's plan was based on the best information he had. But in > what ways did his plan backfire? Which beliefs were wrong? Should > Harry have been paired with someone else? SSSusan: Reading it the first time, it did seem really weird and kind of dumb to have Harry paired with Hagrid in the sidecar. Well, maybe not weird to be paired with him, but weird to have him in the sidecar. THinking about the fact that the DEs would be *expecting* Harry to be on a broom, though, because of his prowess as a flyer, I understood the rationale. Siriusly Snapey Susan From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Oct 2 22:03:55 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:03:55 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > Rather than say Voldemort can or can not kill Harry, > let me say that I think it is possible for Voldemort > to cause Harry's death, which is not quite the same > thing. > > It is not impossible to kill Harry, just far more > difficult that other wizard who do not have this > special protections surrounding them. I think the > circumstance under which Harry's protection is > highest, and Voldemort's is the lowest, if a direct > frontal killing-curse attack by Voldemort. Allie: And yet, that seems to be the only way Voldemort can come up with to attack him. How creative. :) bboymin: > Plus, Harry fell into an almost-death, or a near-death. > So, the rebounding curse, would not have ripped Voldie > from his body as completely as in Godrics Hollow. In > a sense, Harry's near-death and the 'death' of the > Soul-Piece absorbed some of the impact. Instead of > the full force of the AK rebounding back on Voldemort, > it was more of a three-way split. > Allie again: I do like this speculation. (But it leads me to ask, why did Harry nearly die at all if he had Lily's blood protection?) Allie (who **thoroughly enjoyed** DH, and does not usually analyze or even notice the inconsistences) From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Oct 2 22:09:11 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:09:11 -0000 Subject: Mudbloods in the DE!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John Paul Smith" wrote: > > 1) What does everyone think of the fact that two of the highest ranking > members of the DE (LV and Snape) are mudbloods? > Allie: Minor correction: They are half-bloods, not "mudbloods." Each had a witch for a mother and a muggle father. In the case of Voldemort, I believe it's supposed to be irony. As far as Snape, the rest of the Death Eaters may not even know. They should know about Voldemort, as Harry shouted it at them in the GoF graveyard, if they believed him. From vixinalizardqueen at hotmail.com Tue Oct 2 22:22:02 2007 From: vixinalizardqueen at hotmail.com (vixinalizardqueen) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:22:02 -0000 Subject: Ron's Kissing Prowess (Was: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves) In-Reply-To: <20071003073723.CUP11540@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177673 > Sharon: > Why does everyone assume that Ron is a sloppy kisser? That seems to > come across in a lot of fanfic as well. Is it because Ron is a bit of > a softie? Why isn't Harry a sloppy kisser? I don't think Draco kisses > anyone in the books, but in fanfic he is always a masterful kisser -- > why is that? I guess it all has to do with character? Ron's > character is very emotional and insecure and he is a fool for > Hermione, but there is nothing in canon about him being a bad kisser. > Lavender definitely seems to like it! :-) vixinalizardqueen: Well, there is this comment from Ginny in HBP when Ron is kissing Lavender for the first time (p.281): "It looks like he's eating her face, doesn't it?... But I suppose he's got to refine his technique somehow." But I'd say he had enough kissing practice in HBP with Lavender that by the time he kisses Hermione in DH he's got his technique down ;) From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 22:50:52 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:50:52 -0000 Subject: Ownership - Harry/Deathly Hallows (Formerly: Re: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Harry, of course, does not wear the cloak all the time, and even if he did, it alone would not make him Master of Death. The Master of Death is the rightful owner of all three Hallows, and Harry holds that role only briefly, if at all, when he is wearing the Invisibility Cloak and using the Resurrection Stone to bring back the shades of his loved ones (who are still dead and cannot return to the world) only so that he can join them. He is not using the Hallows to make himself immortal, only to give himself the courage to sacrifice himself as his mother did and join his beloved dead. He deliberately gives up the Resurrection Stone instead of keeping it, and later deliberately refuses to use the Elder Wand except to repair his own. IOW, Harry is as mortal as anyone else at the end of the book and has relinquished whatever claim he might have had to immortality, assuming that being Master of Death would make that possible, rather than simply allowing him to choose his time like the third brother in the fairy tale. > > Gary B: A question about ownership vs. physical possession of magical objects. Despite his dropping of the resurrection stone and 'renouncing' it, isn't Harry still the owner of the object until a rock collector happens upon it in the woods or someone with more serious designs? The ownership 'string' is still not broken. I was thinking that owhership is different than possession -- examples, the Elder Wand knew its owner in the final confrontation, even though Harry did not have it in his possession (or had ever touched it before this scene) until after the duel was essentially over. Also, the sword of Gryffindor apparently leaves the possession of the goblins to return to its "owner" Neville -- this works for to any Gryffindor who needs it in the performance of a noble deed and fits into the plot requirement at the moment. Confusingly, where is it when Harry needs it earlier to destroy the horclux -- why does Snape need to 'plant' it in the pond in the woods? Magic and plot in conflict? Connection between the Sorting Hat and the appearance of the sword (two times, I believe in the canon)? So following this logic, Harry is still the owner of the three deadly hallows and is the 'master of death' at the end DH -- although that may mean nothing given the differences between the legend of the 'tale' and effects of the three objects in the story. This does not reduce power of Harry's offer to sacrifice himself given that he cannot be sure of what this might mean ('master of death') or whether it actually works as advertised. Gary B. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 00:34:04 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:34:04 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177675 > Pippin: > If I understand correctly, that wouldn't be a problem with Christian > concepts of the afterlife in which there is no marriage or giving in > marriage. We are free to imagine that death frees Snape > from his tortured longing for Lily, James from his jealousy of Snape, > and all three of them from carnal love, as in many Christian > texts. Prep0strus: Depends on your idea of 'heaven', I suppose. I'm not so sure I want to be freed of carnal love! (Of course, it may not be my choice.) But Snape as 'part of the game' in the afterlife? I dunno. I'm not even sure why I find the idea so distasteful... maybe it's that it diminishes the relationships in life that can continue on in the afterlife if someone without relationships is suddenly a part of them. Or maybe I simply expect to see some change in life in order to expect change in the afterlife. And I don't see much change in Snape. I am not convinced by what we saw of his life and death that he is open to the kind of change you propose. From what I've seen of Snape, I don't know if being happy would make him happy. And it's that reading of him that makes him a character devoid of hope for me. I think it's very clear that he doesn't read that way to some, if not most, others, but for me, that's how it comes across. > > Pippin: > The House Elf liberation subplot and the Dobby subplot each have a > beginning, a middle and an end. That the endings aren't as hopeful > as you expected is not the same as leaving them unfinished. > Prep0strus: I only partially agree. I think the Dobby subplot did have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Dobby had a beautiful, tragic story, in which, he as an individual, as a character, has a full and complete arc. But I think that Dobby and the house elf storyline are tied together. I don't think the elf story can be separated. Now, I don't know how I feel about the elf story itself. I mean, she spent a ton of time on it, kind of made it seem, between Hermione who is usually a good moral center and 'outsider looking in' to the ww and Dobby, a good creature who wants freedom, that house elf freedom would be a good thing to work towards. Of course, then we learn that's not really what elves want, but I still had to wonder - then why waste that much time on it? These books are long, and tons of things we'd love to see are left out, so why? My expectation was that because somehow it would represent the wizarding relationship with other species as well. I realize that not all of JKR's subplots are going to come to complete fruition, but, at the end, I just don't understand why she wasted so much time on it. Dobby getting his freedom would have been enough for the story of Dobby - all the time spent talking about it to lead to nowhere is strange to me. And while it's nice to see a change in heart of wizards (though I agree that Ron's change is not as significant as you suggest), I think that Dobby DOES represent something. Because his death, with no change in the world, simply means he was an anomaly, a freak the humans might admire but the elves just as soon forget. Alive, happy & free, he could have been a representative of a new idea, of a possibility for a different kind of happiness. And that's not where JKR was going, I guess. But I really don't know where she was going. And Dobby was THE house elf. The elf that started it all for the Trio, the one who wanted freedom, the one who inspired Hermione. His death has meaning when it comes to that storyline and how we view elves at large. I enjoyed Dobby's storyline. But the house elves storyline I don't understand, do not think it came to any kind of conclusion, and am confused as to why it was included at all. > Pippin: > If we had learned nothing about the Marauders after age seventeen, > they wouldn't seem very likeable or helpful either. IMO, JKR first > leads Harry to associate Slytherin House with everything hateful about > human nature, and then allows him to learn that this was uncalled > for. She doesn't show us Slytherins as saints or heroes, but she > does show that neither Draco nor Snape is the embodiment of evil. > That's Voldemort's job. > The Draco of the epilogue is not someone we have to like. > Judging by his son's name, he's still a proponent of winning through > intimidation. He's made a pureblood marriage, so he probably still > thinks purebloods are more respectable than other wizards. > That would make him a jerk. But that's not the same as being evil. > Prep0strus But my point is that the Marauders aren't the only Griffindors we met. We met lots of people, of all ages, and are able to see that most people are, for the most part, good, and even likable. Unless they're Slytherin. In which case, they are, for the most part, evil, or, 'jerks'. You point out that Draco may be a jerk, not evil. That's fine - except ALL the Slytherins are jerks, even if they aren't evil. If JKR wanted to show us in the beginning a one sided view of Slytherin, but then expand it later, that's fine. But it seems you're saying that she showed us - 'Hey, not all Slytherins are evil, you know! Some of them are only big jerks!' That's a lesson, I guess. Don't judge by appearances - sometimes, a big jerk is just a jerk, and not evil incarnate. But, in the end, all Slytherins are evil or big jerks. I don't think this shows her willingness to give them any true equality. As characters some may rise above evil, but their flaws still outbalance their positive traits. Amy: I guess this is why I couldn't see why admirable/likable was being linked to who JKR meant us to see as Good. Yeah, I think JKR condemns certain Slytherin personality traits, which is probably why the House members are all so unlikeable. I really don't think she condemns Slytherin House in itself, though, so in the larger picture, I can't see why it matters that they ARE unlikeable, given how subjective "likability" really is. Slughorn, for example, is probably the only Slytherin who was meant to be likeable (if not admirable -- I think it was Snape, who was meant to be admirable -- Harry at least admires him at the end of the series); most of fandom hates him, and why is this? His networking tendencies? (Networking, which is actually something Hermione apparently excels at, considering how she started the DA.) I can't argue that Slytherin aren't on a more unequal level than the other three Houses, but neither can I believe that this unequalness is as damning to all other future members of Slytherin House as others seem to think it is. Prep0strus: The reason being admirable/liking the characters is connected to their being damned... I'm not sure how to answer that. I know I feel that they are, but it's hard to explain why... maybe it's because I don't consider 'damned' the right word, or at least he way I feel. I think that by showing an entire group as unlikable, withing meaningful exception, JKR is trying to say something. They are unequal, as you said, but what it means to theoretical future members of the house isn't something I can predict. All I can say is in the story we see, she had an opportunity to make them equal, and did not. I think the house represents racism, cruelty, prejudice, arrogance, ruthlessness - terrible traits we are meant to find distasteful. And we are meant to find the members of that house distasteful. I know that if they aren't 'evil', they aren't 'damned', but in a literary or metaphorical sense, I don't think they can be remotely considered 'good' or 'equal' either. As for Slughorn, I think we find him unlikable because JKR wants us to - I think to her, his primary characteristic is his cowardice, which we know to be something she despises. But, for me, it's the way he treated the kids. He is not 'networker'. He uses those kids, and sucks up to those that he thinks he can get something from. It is all about HIM, about how he feels about himself. He is completely self-involved. He is exclusionary, and will deliberately make a young child feel unwelcome if he thinks the kid won't be able to get him anything. He may not be evil, and he may not even be a nasty person. But I find him loathsome, and extraordinary unlikable. Carol responds: You may disagree, but I think it's significant that out of a House of some seventy students for that House (using the 280 students calculable from the forty students per year implied in SS/PS and CoS, which would mean ten per class per year), only three in Harry's generation (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle) became affiliated with the DEs (despite at least one other student, Theo Nott, having a DE father), and of those three, one (Draco) became thoroughly disillusioned. Despite the implied association of Slytherin House with Dark magic, we don't see any Slytherin other than these three casting an Unforgiveable Curse (actually, we only hear of Goyle Crucioing students in detention; in the RoR, he just stands there pointing his wand). We have a total of one Slytherin in Harry's generation, who actually becomes evil. In short, blood prejudice does not in itself make a person a Death Eater. The elder Blacks were sympathizers but didn't join up. Phineas Nigellus (admittedly only a portrait) and Horace Slughorn ended up on the other side. Blaise Zabini, a typical Slytherin in terms of attitude, rejected the DEs. Andromeda Black, probably a Slytherin given the remarks by Sirius and Slughorn, became a "blood traitor" and actively aligned herself with the other side. Most Slytherin students sat out the battle. Conclusion: DE and Slytherin are not synonymous, nor are Slytherin and evil, as Harry learns near the end of DH. Until that point, we have seen from his perspective, so, of course, it *seems* as if Slytherin is synonymous with evil. Maybe not. Maybe she wants the reader to see what Harry sees, that it's *not* okay to lump a whole House together and regard them as evil, Dark Arts-practicing bigots. Maybe, by presenting a Slytherin or Slytherin supporter (Kreacher) as human (or humanlike, in the case of Kreacher), as sympathetic and flawed, capable of both error and redemption, maybe she's showing that Harry and his friends have been *wrong* in their judgment of Slytherin, as wrong as the Slytherins themselves in their advocacy of blood supremacy. Prep0strus: I tried to judiciously snip from your post, but as always, I've probably left too much or taken away too much. But the basic point (and I realize, I'm getting REALLY basic here) is... 'they're not that bad. or, at least, not as bad as we once thought they were.' I mean, you're right. She could have shown many more evil young Slytherins. But for me, it's strange to assume that everyone we haven't seen is good, or nice, when everyone we HAVE been shown isn't. I guess it really is all how you look at it, but, in the second part of your posting you seem to be showing how being prejudiced against muggleborns doesn't make you evil. That though many Slytherins are unpleasant, that doesn't make them EVIL. And I agree with you. But every Slytherin we're shown IS unpleasant. The one who winds up the most sympathetic and least unpleasant a personality of your examples is Kreacher - not even an actual Slytherin. You don't want us to lump them together as evil, Dark-Arts practicing bigots. How about just bigots? It's like what I was saying earlier - not being evil doesn't make them not jerks. And they all are jerks. There is no equality among houses because JKR does not give us examples of people that can be taken as equals. There are many Griffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs that we haven't seen, but I don't think most people assume that they are Voldemort supporters. Your post seems to assume that other people are assuming that many of the Slytherins we haven't seen ARE Voldemort supporters, and you're saying that may not be so, as JKR only showed us three in the younger generation who are. But I think it's obvious that we have these assumptions because it is how JKR showed the world to be. And not just in the first few books. Even by the end, she does not give us likable Slytherins who are true equals in humanity. And every time she shows us something wrong with the world, it is Slytherins who do it. Other than Peter, who is the friend that betrays them, we just don't see the same potential in all houses. If we were really supposed to see the world open up in our eyes, through Harry, we would have seen through his eyes how Yaxley was a Ravenclaw and Avery was a Hufflepuff. We would have seen that Madam Pince was a Slytherin and so was Shackelbolt. We would have seen actual equality. Since JKR made a point of showing every Slytherin to be of an unpleasant personality, and every evil deed to be performed by a Slytherin, I have to think she was saying something. I do not see nearly enough evidence to think that JKR views Slytherin as anything but a representative for things that are wrong with humanity, and the characters who are not 'evil' simply manage to have enough non-Slytherin characteristics (and enough import to the story) that they can escape complete one dimensional evil. I never thought Snape would turn out evil, and he turned out to still be nasty, so my view of Snape didn't change much from the first books on. And neither did my view of Slytherin. I just don't see where anything new was added to show us that it is anything more than the house of everything JKR hates. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Wed Oct 3 00:52:18 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:52:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mudbloods in the DE!! References: Message-ID: <007901c80557$a659b650$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 177676 Allie: Minor correction: They are half-bloods, not "mudbloods." Each had a witch for a mother and a muggle father. In the case of Voldemort, I believe it's supposed to be irony. As far as Snape, the rest of the Death Eaters may not even know. They should know about Voldemort, as Harry shouted it at them in the GoF graveyard, if they believed him. Terri says I'm wondering if it is irony or another reference to Hitler. Hitler pushed the idea of Aryan supremacy. He promoted tall, blond and blue eyed as the ideal while he was short and dark. Terri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 01:00:01 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:00:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) In-Reply-To: <20071003073723.CUP11540@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> References: <20071003073723.CUP11540@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0710021800k25cce096tc394951055406994@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177677 Montavilla47 wrote: > > Here's the part where I have a problem, because I *don't* see any change of heart here. The Ron who thinks about warning the House-Elves about the battle doesn't seem any different than the Ron who exposes Hermione's booby-hats in the common room so that the elves will have a choice about whether or not they want to become free. > > So, that moment all the culmination of the S.P.E.W. subplot fell flat for me. Even if it did have the big sloppy kiss that every Ron/Hermione shipper had been waiting for for seven books. Carol: Hermione, it seems to me, comes much closer in DH to understanding the psychology of house-elves in DH than in earlier books, and her new understanding helps Harry to reach Kreacher's mind and begin to treat his views with something other than contempt. Debbie: Although at one time (pre-OOP) I envisioned Dumbledore flinging socks in the final battle, I believe JKR used the House Elf liberation issue primarily to illustrate the R/H subplot. And this scene, though a bit awkwardly done, resolves this subplot by showing that both of them had adjusted their positions. In expressing concern for the House Elves, Ron expressly rejects Harry's query whether they should get the House Elves fighting. He only wants to protect them, which is a far cry from his statement in GoF that "They. Like. It. They *like* being enslaved!" (ch. 14). Back then he seemed to be in denial that the House Elves were being abused and needed help. And, as Carol pointed out (which I will not repeat), Hermione has adjusted her own position, or she would not have considered Ron's statement to be justification for the kiss that's been coming for six books, if not seven. Only now does she have the understanding to formulate a plan that might actually help abused House Elves. And perhaps she's able to do so in her career (which IMO is wide open since I don't read JKR interviews or put any credence in anything she says), so I think the outlook for elves is quite good at the end of the book. Debbie who found it a bit jarring that in the last sentence of the main action of the series, Harry wants his slave Kreacher to bring him a sandwich and wanted to tell him to go get his own damn sandwich and thank Kreacher for his leadership of the elves in the final battle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 01:26:02 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:26:02 -0000 Subject: Ron, Hermione, and the hearts of house-elves (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0710021800k25cce096tc394951055406994@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177678 > Debbie: > Although at one time (pre-OOP) I envisioned Dumbledore flinging socks in the > final battle, I believe JKR used the House Elf liberation > issue primarily to illustrate the R/H subplot. And this scene, though a bit > awkwardly done, resolves this subplot by showing that both of them > had adjusted their positions. In expressing concern for the House Elves, > Ron expressly rejects Harry's query whether they should get the House Elves > fighting. He only wants to protect them, which is a far cry from his > statement in GoF that "They. Like. It. They *like* being enslaved!" (ch. > 14). Back then he seemed to be in denial that the House Elves were being > abused and needed help. And, as Carol pointed out (which I will not > repeat), Hermione has adjusted her own position, or she would not have > considered Ron's statement to be justification for the kiss that's been > coming for six books, if not seven. Magpie: I'm still not seeing how Ron's changed his position. He still thinks House Elves are correctly slaves, doesn't he? But that doesn't mean he's always been okay with anything anyone did to them or ordered them to do. It seems to me that this is exactly the same respect he offered them back in OotP when he didn't get rid of the hats Hermione was leaving out but said "They ought to know what they're picking up." But he still seems to me to think House Elves are different from people and like being enslaved. It seems like it's Hermione who's changed her attitude, though pretending she hasn't. She started out treating House Elves as brainwashed humans, then morphed into saying that they needed to be treated well because they'll respond to that and just want people to be kind to them. For two books she's pushing for freeing them, then in Book VI she's completely dropped it to the point where she says nothing when one of her best friend actually owns one of them. She no longer seems to think they're abused or need help. Then in Book VII she's instructing on the real psychology of House Elves. What's odd to me is that Ron's attitude is presented as a change when I just don't think it is. It was Hermione's attitude to it that surprised me, not what Ron said. As to it being an end to the House Elf storyline, it could be, if the House Elf plot was only supposed to be something for Ron and Hermione to bicker about. But I have to say, that's a bit unfortunate for me, because it's done a lot more as Hermione really getting into a political cause, and ending that with a kiss between her and Ron is a little...weird. I was actually happy when it was just dropped, though I thought it was bizarre, so I would be happy for nothing to be done with it at all, but Harry the beloved master with his personal slave...wow, that went a bit far. I think JKR said the SPEW plot got away from her, and this may be the unfortunate result. If this were a realistic story where a middle class teenaged girl got really into a political cause and then had the story wrapped up with her just getting her man I'd think it was a point about the girl's commitment to the cause being shallow. > Debbie > who found it a bit jarring that in the last sentence of the main action of > the series, Harry wants his slave Kreacher to bring him a sandwich > and wanted to tell him to go get his own damn sandwich and thank Kreacher > for his leadership of the elves in the final battle Magpie: To me, part of the nostalgia factor is the "every one in their proper, happy place" aspect. I thought the same thing about Kreacher (that he should be thanked and honored equally and not given sandwich orders), but I don't think Harry's last line indicates anything but that House Elves are exactly where they belong, that they like being slaves, that this is their natural place, and that Kreacher's one lucky slave for having a proper, deserving master. -m From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 01:32:36 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:32:36 -0400 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty Message-ID: <80f25c3a0710021832w44eabb7fva64684e38280b348@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177679 Catlady: > The real issue of discussion is, at what point does loyalty to > family get trumped? > Betsy Hp: I think this can be an interesting discussion. It's not one that the series ever entertains though, IMO. Which is too bad and I think an example of us fans deepening what was, in the end, a rather simple tale. JKR could have used Marietta's story (or Sirius's or Regulus's or Draco's or Percy's) to explore family loyalty and when (if ever) it should be broken and are there right ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. She didn't. Instead it came down to a personal cult allied to Dumbledore (and then Harry) that was the deciding factor. Were you breaking to stand with Dumbledore? Then it's good. If you were breaking to stand against Dumbledore, then it's bad. Debbie: I've thought long and hard about JKR's apparent insistence on loyalty to Dumbledore. Taken at face value, it's one of the creepier things about him, one which has given me pause ever since he commented in CoS that "you must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you." Frankly, that sort of thing does seem at first blush to imply a cult of personality. But perhaps a better way to look at it is to ask why Dumbledore inspires that kind of loyalty. The truth is that Dumbledore is too distant and keeps too many secrets to draw allegiance by force of personality; Harry's visits to Dumbledore's office are extremely rare and are always precipitated by an external event. What draws people to Dumbledore's leadership is the cause he represents and his record of success against Grindelwald. He is an extremely powerful wizard, but uses his power and cleverness against Dark Wizards. Even Voldemort was afraid of Dumbledore. Harry is well aware of this, and has been since PS/SS. Moreover, defeating Voldemort has been Harry's number one goal since at least that book. ("If Snape gets hold of the Stone, Voldemort's coming back! Haven't you heard what it was like when he was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! He'll flatten it, or turn it into a school for Dark Arts! . . . If I get caught before I can get to the Stone, well, I'll have to go back to the Dursleys and wait for Voldemort to find me there, because I'm never going over to the Dark Side! I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing you two say is going to stop me! Voldemort killed my parents, remember?") Harry's primary choice in PS/SS is not to follow Dumbledore (he thought going after the Stone might get him expelled), but to oppose Voldemort. His continued allegiance to Dumbledore after he learns the truth about him in DH makes much more sense when considered in light of Harry's goal. Harry tells Aberforth, "Sometimes you've *got* to think about the greater good! This is war!" and "I'm of age, and I'm going to keep fighting even if you've given up!" Harry knew all along that fighting Voldemort could put him in, as Aberforth says, "in a worse state than if he'd left 'em well alone." Harry continues to follow Dumbledore's instructions because he knows that Dumbledore's mission was the same as his own: Defeat Voldemort. As for Marietta, I find fault with Hermione's jinx, and JKR's apparent approval of a permanent SNEAK scar, but Hermione did clearly state the goal of the DA in the Hogs Head. ("Of course I do [want to pass the DADA O.W.L.] But more than that, I want to be properly trained in defence because . . . because . . . [deep breath] . . . because Lord Voldemort is back.") The goal of the DA was to defend themselves against *Voldemort.* And she laid out the Ministry's views. ("We think the reason Umbridge doesn't want us trained in Defence Against the Dark Arts," said Hermione, "is that she's got some . . . some mad idea that Dumbledore could use the students in the school as a private army. She thinks he'd mobilise us against the Ministry.") And Marietta signed. In that moment, she chose fighting Voldemort vs. supporting the Ministry. And lastly, I don't think Dumbledore's Army, despite its name, was ever a Dumbledore cult. It always revolved around Harry, who was the attraction that drew people to the first meeting, and who was formally elected leader at the first official meeting in the RoR. The name was a useful cover for Harry's Defence Association, which played on the Ministry's fears. While the name conveniently permitted Dumbledore to take the blame for it, the D.A. was always Harry's. Neville uses the DA as a rallying cry in DH, but his actions reflect the lessons that he learned from *Harry* and his loyalty is to Harry, whom he considers the true leader of the resistance. Debbie suspecting that JKR believes the Blacks illustrate the complexities of family loyalty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 01:55:03 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 20:55:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0710021832w44eabb7fva64684e38280b348@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0710021832w44eabb7fva64684e38280b348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710021855w600b98eds63c2db498257e837@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177680 On 10/2/07, elfundeb wrote: > > Catlady: > > The real issue of discussion is, at what point does loyalty to > > family get trumped? > > montims: OK - don't read on if you're easily upset, but *deep breath* I personally don't put any more value on family loyalty than I do patriotism, and that is low... If you are from a good family, well done - it stands to reason you can and should be loyal to it. If you were lucky enough to grow up in a good country, be a good citizen. But for me, that is no more admirable than taking pride in being born with brown eyes, or red hair - it is not something that you can change or take credit for - what counts with me are the values you acquire with maturity, and the company you choose to keep. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From randy_harrison_fan at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 04:10:55 2007 From: randy_harrison_fan at yahoo.com (Ashleigh Gunty) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:10:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177681 > Q 7. (snipped) Is there a literary reason for Hedwig's death and > the loss of the Firebolt? Well, for 7: I think it's the last hold he has with his childhood / innocence / naivete. Slipped right through his fingers, figuratively and literally speaking. randy_harrison_fan From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 05:38:13 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:38:13 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > Why, then, did the rebounding curse rip Voldemort out of his body > when he attacked Harry in Godric's Hollow, but merely knock him out > for a few minutes in the forest? Was it the addition of the Nagini > horcrux (the Harry-horcrux having been destroyed by his curse)? Or > did the curse *not* rebound on him, and if not, why not? I believe that LV's curse didn't rebound in the forest. If it did, Harry wouldn't have "died" and the soul-bit wouldn't be destroyed. What happened in the forest seems very different from the events in GH, when Harry wasn't hurt, but LV became Vapor!Mort. I think that the AK worked all right in the forest. As for why, I only can guess that the curse didn't rebound because Harry himself wanted to die. OK, "wanted" is the wrong word here, but he *intended* to die, it was his choice to die, he didn't fight for his life, so the blood protection didn't protect him this time. But I still don't understand what happened to LV in this case. If he wasn't hit by the rebounding curse, why was he knocked out? Why did he also had a near-death experience? It could be explained by the loss of the soul-bit, but then, why nothing of the sort happened to him when Nagini died? She was also a living Horcrux and I think LV had a link with her as well. zanooda, who doesn't have the time to write more, but who agrees with Allie that the whole thing is rather confusing ... From chrj.smit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 2 20:04:49 2007 From: chrj.smit at yahoo.com (Chris Smith) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Slytherin House - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <744192.92414.qm@web45514.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177683 colebiancardi: Would Snape's mission and sacrifice be any less if he had been able to move on from the memory of Lily? I don't believe so. In fact, in the end, he had moved on. He protected the Order, he protected the students at Hogwarts. He risked his own soul by killing Dumbledore because DD wanted to die peacefully and not risk Draco's soul. That went way above what DD ordered him to do after Lily's death - which was to protect Harry only. Chrj.Smit: It's true that Snape was given more chores to do as the story went on, however, it was his choice. When he met DD on that rock, he agreed to do whatever he could to honor the memory of the woman he loved and lost (Lily Potter). While that love was not reciprocated by her, Snape still felt remorse for what happened to her, and it's through that love that he protected Harry, even if they hated each other. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 3 12:29:53 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:29:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177684 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4, The Seven Potters >>Carol: I don't think I was surprised by any team members except Mundungus. Potioncat: Mundungus was a surprise to me, too. He didn't want to be there, so why was he? Is the Order so short of members they had to use him? Or, did Moody have some suspicions about his loyalty, bringing him along to keep an eye on him? He seemed very nervous, hard to tell if that was in character or not, but I wondered later if there was some effect of the Confundus charm. Although I wouldn't think Dung remembers meeting with Snape, is there some gut reaction to the experience? I was a little surprised at the number of Weasleys. Arthur and all his at home sons were there. (Charley being away and Percy estranged.) Only Molly and Ginny were absent. I expected to lose some of them. The loss of an ear was almost a relief! There were two couples: Remus/Tonks and Bill/Fleur and two just barely overaged wizards: Hermione and Ron. In OoP, the twins weren't allowed to join the Order, now very young members are given highly dangerous roles. It even sounds as if Hermione had a role in the planning of the mission, or at least the opportunity to speak her mind. Things must be very bad indeed, the Order seems to be taking a lot of risks. >>Carol: I loved the humor, very much in character for everyone concerned. Snip It's as if the first half represents normalcy, the Order and Harry's friends and Hedwig and even Petunia's superclean kitchen as we know them. By the end of this chapter (and the next), nothing will be the same again. Potioncat: I loved it too. Some of the best JKR has written. Not only the joking around, but several of the uncomfortable situations were funny. Harry's discomfort in the sidecar, Ron uncomfortable about holding Tonks's waist. I'm not sure how JKR was able to be so funny knowing what was about to come. >>Carol: I think (to jump ahead briefly) it was exactly the plan that Snape suggested to Confunded!Mundungus (Confundungus?), with some additional touches (the pairings and the means of transportation). I think there were more DEs than Mad-eye anticipated and I don't think he had any idea that LV himself would be there. Potioncat: Confundungus! I love it! I wonder if Snape knew LV was going? And, since the DEs didn't know there would be 7 sets, I wonder how the DEs split up? I still don't understand why the Order didn't have more protection. I guess they really did only expect a few DEs who would be stretched to the limit to cover all the sets. >>Carol: I'm not sure whether it's ironic, but I liked his trying to save Stan Shunpike even though that gesture of mercy revealed him to the other DE. Potioncat: Not sure if this is exactly ironic either, but Moody mentions Thicknesse who's gone over, but we know the man is under an Imperius. So is Stan (it seems). In the past that was an "excuse" Malfoy used and seemed a weak one. Now it's obvious how dangerous and misleading things can get. Another irony was Moody saying something along the line of "We can all catch up later." But he won't be there to catch up. In chapter one, Snape suggested that Dawlish had been Confunded, as a way to discredit Yaxley with LV. Ironic, that Snape confunded Dung. But it makes me wonder, we know a false lead was set up by the Order, so who confunded Dawlish? Of course, Snape offers up the Confundus as an explanation quite often. He suggested the Trio had been Confunded by Black back in PoA. >>Carol: Obviously, it prepares us for the next chapter (which I won't discuss here) and the stories of the other "Potters" and their escorts, but it also introduces several surprises that will play a role later: Voldemort can fly without a broom, a wand can act of its own volition. We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see again and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with Dolores Umbridge. Snape's role in helping to arrange the plan is also set up through Mad-eye's statement that the polyjuiced Potters were Mundungus's idea. Potioncat: I haven't finished re-reading DH, but this time, I caught the wand's behavior as a set up for the later Elder Wand plot. I though the Selwyn bit was nice--that is, I did later when the name comes up again. A question from chapter one's discussion: who was Snape's source, made even more sense as I read this chapter. Does anyone think Snape continues to meet with Confundungus? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 14:02:31 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:02:31 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > >> Irene: > > >> > > >> But that's what the books strongly suggest. For example, in book > > > 2, when Harry is worried that he is too similar to Voldemort, and > > > Dumbledore talks about the choices that show who you are, he does > > > not say that Harry had chosen to be a good person (and would have > > > stayed a good person even if sorted into Slytherin). > > Pippin: > How could Dumbledore promise that? He's not omniscient. > > If Harry had been sorted into Slytherin, then Dumbledore would have > had to use another example to show that Harry has made choices > that show he is different than Voldemort. For example that he wanted > to find the Stone but not use it. As it is, Dumbledore can't speak to the > choices Harry would have made if he'd gone into Slytherin because > no one will ever know. > > In retrospect it seems to me as though Dumbledore is simply > pointing out that Harry is not doomed to make the same choices > that Riddle made because he resembles Riddle, not that this > choice more than any other proves he's not evil. lizzyben: But DD could have talked about many different "choices" Harry made that proves he is not evil - saving Ginny's life, for one. But he doesn't. Instead, he talks about how Harry's "choice" to avoid Slytherin shows who he truly is - a good person. A bad person would have gone to Slytherin House, as Riddle did. And this impression is re-inforced when JKR describes the scene in the same exact terms. > Pippin: > JKR is talking through the Harry filter here, IMO. Harry will learn that > there are warped wizards who were not Slytherin and Slytherins > who are not warped, like Slughorn and Regulus. Sirius never describes > his brother as wicked -- he's "soft". lizzyben: Was she also talking through the Harry filter when she said she was "shocked" & "disturbed" that any fan would call themselves a Slytherin? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like she meant what she said - Slytherin is the house of warped wizards. Pippin: > I was disturbed by Dumbledore's "sort too soon" comment, which > smacks of "mighty white of you, Severus." But in DH Dumbledore > is no longer the 'epitome of goodness' (another example of JKR's > Harry filter) -- we learn that Harry is the better man. Pippin: > Harry, the better man, does not tell Al that he is named for a > Slytherin so brave he could have been a Gryffindor. He tells Al > he will have a choice, but not that the choice of Gryffindor will > mean that he is different than Voldemort. Oddly enough, by > the end of the book it is Dumbledore who symbolizes the > perils of cunning and too great a desire for power, while > Snape has come to embody friendship and bravery. > > Pippin lizzyben: I'm just not sure what JKR wants us to think of DD. I think he's an incredible character & a great villian. LV is boring, but DD is facinating in his manipulativeness, duplcity & Machievilian schemes. And JKR did a wonderful job of hiding his true nature for 6 books, yet still dropping enough clues to make us suspect his real character. I can't stand DD, & but then it seems like the text wants us to forgive & admire him. JKR still called him a "great & irreplaceable man," & "brilliant." Meanwhile, we all thought she said negative things about Snape because she had to reflect the "Harry Filter" after HBP, but then it turned out to be that no, she just really dislikes Snape. I'm not sure the "Harry Filter" plays any role at all - JKR means what she says. When she hopes she'd be "worthy" of Gryffindor, and condemns Slytherin, I think she means that too. I agree w/Prepostrus; Slytherins are meant to be hated, though I think it's a twisted way of looking at the world. In this universe, all the mean, horrible, bigoted people are sorted into one house. And as JKR said, if a child is "twisted" by "lack of love" well, they go there too to become another "warped wizard." All the evils of the world are swept into one House, leading to the inevitable conclusion that "eliminating" the Slytherins would get rid of all the evil in this world. Which would work in a novel about some alien planet; but it tells us nothing about actual human nature or real good & evil in this world. It is, fundamentally, a lie. lizzyben From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 15:58:23 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:58:23 -0000 Subject: Patronuses as Messengers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177686 Re-reading GoF this morning, I noticed that when Harry brings DD down to the edge of the FF, after Krum and Crouch have been attacked, DD sends "something silvery and bird-like" out of the end of his wand up to the castle. He sent his Patronus, which we know was a phoenix, to alert the other professors at the castle. So, even though Harry didn't know what DD had done, and therfore, we didn't know, Patronuses *had* been used as messangers long before HBP. I just thought that was interesting, Katie From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 16:19:16 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:19:16 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177687 > lizzyben: > > I'm just not sure what JKR wants us to think of DD. I think he's an > incredible character & a great villian. LV is boring, but DD is > facinating in his manipulativeness, duplcity & Machievilian schemes. > And JKR did a wonderful job of hiding his true nature for 6 books, > yet still dropping enough clues to make us suspect his real > character. I can't stand DD, & but then it seems like the text wants > us to forgive & admire him. JKR still called him a "great & > irreplaceable man," & "brilliant." Meanwhile, we all thought she > said negative things about Snape because she had to reflect > the "Harry Filter" after HBP, but then it turned out to be that no, > she just really dislikes Snape. I'm not sure the "Harry Filter" > plays any role at all - JKR means what she says. When she hopes > she'd be "worthy" of Gryffindor, and condemns Slytherin, I think she > means that too. Prep0strus: I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this point, especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is not perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good. It sounds like many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition, arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own means. But, his means are for GOOD. Now, well meaning intentions don't mean you can't still do evil - one could even argue that his intentions with Grindelwald had some amount of altruistic intent, at least in his own mind. but towards the end of his life, Dumbledore was devoted to defeating Voldemort - yes, he was willing to sacrifice other people for that cause. But he was also willing to sacrifice himself. He didn't trust other's judgment as much as his own, but how many people do? He was the most powerful, the one who had defeated a previous evil dark lord... I'm not defending everything Dumbledore does. He's certainly flawed. but a 'great villain'? There's nothing villainous about him. And yet, over and over we have to see this effusive praising of Snape. Just as obsessed with secrecy, just as arrogant, no braver. Why in the world would Snape be a hero and Dumbledore not? People seem truly angry with Dumbledore's character, and make him out to be 2nd to Voldemort in evil, and I just don't get it. Is it because we were trained to believe he was perfect, and he wasn't? Is it the reverse effect? People love to love a guy like Snape, who seems bad, but is good, but if someone seems good, and isn't perfect, they have to be castigated? If there are two flawed heroes, both who do things wrong, but try to do the right thing... I'm still going to the like the one who is kind to children and who makes an attempt to inspire and show love. Not the one who's nasty and bitter and takes it out on the world. ~Prep0strus(Adam) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 16:40:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:40:53 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177688 > Prep0strus: > I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this point, > especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is not > perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good. It sounds like > many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition, > arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own means. > But, his means are for GOOD. Magpie: I can't speak for anyone else--and I don't hate Dumbledore, but if I were to say he makes a great villain it's more because I think he *could* be rather than that he is one. The way he's so manipulative and isolated in his understanding under this frosting of being twinkly and kind--it's wonderfully chilling to me. Especially when he gets tearful and wants forgiveness for being a little Machievelli...that kind of thing just always gives me the willies, where you can imagine the person killing somebody and then being all "feel sorry for me!" I thought his speech in OotP was hilarious that way, how even when he attempts to explain how it's all his fault he just can't help but explain how it was everybody's else fault because they didn't live up to what they should have been. So I don't consider him a villain in this series (obviously, he was trying to defeat Voldemort and he really loved Harry and will Harry forgive Dumblekins for being such a silly billy about his thing for power and wanting to be the Master of Death and making boo-boos because he's such a very good boy?), but I'd love to see him as a villain and he's been made into a great one in fanfics that focus on everybody, including the adults, waking up and running their own war instead of wondering what Dumbledore wanted. (And now we've got the backstory that makes it even more believable--you could write him as like the anti-Snape, resenting his commitment to the good side because he feels like he *should* care about his sister's death because that's what good guys do when he really isn't eaten up by guilt like Snape is, and he hates Snape for always reminding him of it.) In terms of Snape, I guess it's kind of the opposite. He's a villain because he's a jerk, he bullies children, he's bitter and cruel. But that's why he's sort of what you see is what you get. In the end it makes sense that underneath, imo, he really is the one who seems far more vulnerable than Dumbledore (Dumbledore's a Gryffindor who had a shameful moment of Slytherin, Snape's saddled with being a Slytherin who had the terrible enlightenment of realizing he should have wanted to be a Gryffindor). I don't consider Snape the more admirable of the two; they're screwed up in different ways and objectively Dumbledore pretty much spent most of his life working for the right things while Snape joined a murderous organization of terrorists supporting a maniac and spread nastiness wherever he could outside of his one single- minded quest to make right getting Lily killed. So he makes a more interesting good guy than villain, while I think Dumbledore makes a more interesting villain. As a villain all his goodness gets deliciously twisted and creepy. As a good guy who's just supposed to be flawed it's like the twisted creepiness and egotism that I sense is just supposed to be a forgivable mistake. Of course, taking that to its conclusion, that's probably also why I find a character like Draco ultimately more interesting the closer he is to good, while Hermione has more potential edging towards evil to me. Not that I'm pushing Draco as the good guy and Hermione as the villain in canon either. But there seems to be something in the way good and bad are presented sometimes in this series that always makes flipping them seem logical, maybe because the root of the problem always seems to be in the opposite place than the series tells me it is. I just can't not keep seeing my quasi-Jungian interpretation, where Slytherin is basically a projection of Gryffindor's Shadow, so Slytherin *is* Gryffindor and vice versa. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 3 17:13:32 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:13:32 -0000 Subject: Seeking the truth (Was: Disappointment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177689 Carol: > It struck me that Harry not only expresses a desire for the truth > about Dumbledore, which he eventually finds, but he also finds the > truth about Snape, which he wasn't seeking, as well as the truth > about his confrontation with Voldemort, about the Hallows, and > perhaps about himself. And there's Godric's Hollow, too, where he > had not wished to go until this book. He finds the truth about his > parents' death (not quite the enlightening chat with old Bathilda > he envisioned), but not about death itself until "King's Cross." > That's interesting. Are you suggesting that the Horcrux hunt is > just a device to structure the plot around, but the central mystery > (and, of course, there's one in every book) is the DD/Harry > connection? Certainly, he's asking questions about DD that he > never asked when DD was alive (how painfully true that particular > insight into human nature is), but I'm not altogether sure that DD > is the center. Jen: Previously I said: "Harry learning the truth about himself and Dumbledore [...] was the central mystery in DH." What I meant was more that Dumbledore played a similar role to Sirius in DH: DD's life was connected with Harry's much more than Harry realized; as such, Dumbledore's story -like Sirius's -was pivotal to Harry learning more about his own life. So yes, I suppose I'm saying the Horcruxes are a device but the rest: Dumbledore's story, the Hallows, the convergence of Harry's and Dumbledore's stories at Godric's Hollow - allow Harry to piece together the final missing information about his life so that the central mystery is effectively solved when he hears what he must do - sacrifice himself. The central mystery includes Snape's story of course, in the sense that learning about his loyalty and connection with Lily and Dumbledore are important for Harry trusting the information Snape must give Harry. Some backing canon for the process Harry goes through about 'the truth,' each step hinging on information he learns about Dumbledore. There's a progression in the text: 1) Denial: "Harry reached the bottom of the article, but continued to stare blankly at the page. Revulsion and fury rose in him like vomit..."Lies!" Harry bellowed, and through the window he saw the next-door neighbor..." (Chap. 2, p. 28, Am ed.) 2) Questioning: "And why it was so important, Harry could not explain even to himself, yet he felt it had been tantamount to a lie not to tell him that they had this place and these experiences in common. " 2) The Choice: "He looked away, trying not to betray the resentment he felt. There it was again: Choose what to believe. He wanted the truth. Why was everybody so determined that he should not get it?" (chap. 10, p. 185, Am. ed.) 3) The Break: "Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk you life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I'm doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!" (chap. 18, p. 362) "Was he turning into Dumbledore, keeping his secrets clutched to his chest, afraid to trust? But Dumbledore had trusted Snape, and where had that led? To murder at the top of the highest tower... "All right," he said quietly to the other two. "Okay," he called to the room at large..." (Chap. 29, p. 583) 4) The Resolution: "Finally the truth" and "Dumbledore's betrayl was almost nothing." (chap. 34) Alla: > You know how I feel about Dumbledore's speech at the end of OOP. I > am not a big fan of it :) > But do I believe Dumbledore here? Yes, every single word of it, even > if he is again engaging in silences and cover ups. > I totally buy that his love for Harry conflicted with the infamous > plan and that Harry is the first person Dumbledore got emotionally > attached to since long time ago. > I do wonder if Dumbledore wished that their lives never got so > closely intertwined, notwithstanding prophecy in a sense that I > think that Dumbledore wished he would not want to care for Harry's > well being. So much easier to think of WW well being in general > than trying to decide what is better " one tear of tortured child > or happiness of all mankind". Jen: I agree with your last statement, something I never thought I'd do! I wasn't prepared to accept when Harry said, "Dumbledore's betrayl was almost nothing" that DD had really betrayed Harry at all. Since he hoped Harry wouldn't die because of how LV rebirthed, didn't that count as not really betraying him? No. He did betray him. Harry never says otherwise in King's Cross. What Harry does offer is forgiveness to Dumbledore. (That crack is the sound of Dumbledore's pedastel breaking and my version of Dumbledore prior to DH crumbling *sniff*.) Carol: > It seems to me (and I'm not arguing, just feeling my way here) that > the central mystery is "the truth" about everything related to > Harry as the Chosen One (including Snape though Harry doesn't know > it). Voldemort, too, is woven into that central mystery, as are > the Hallows (he's the descendant of the second brother) and > Godric's Hollow, where he was ripped apart and created his own > nemesis. And the nature of death itself, which Hermione tries to > explain (the soul is eternal, very different from the earthly > mortality LV desires and tries through evil and unnatural magic to > obrain). > Alla: Harry is indeed a Seeker and his quest, it seems to me is to > seek truth of what he was chosen to do, what he has to do, what he > needs to do. He is seeking to discover, I think truth about him > first and foremost. Jen: In case my above comments are muddled, yes, I completely agree that Harry seeking the truth about himself is the central mystery of DH, learning about his true self as well as what I think of as his false self as the Chosen One (the one he became because of Voldemort). Harry must discern how Dumbledore fits into his story just as he had to learn more about Riddle in COS, James and the Marauders in POA, Voldemort's plan at the end of GOF & throughout OOTP, and Voldemort and the Horcruxes in HBP. Carol: > I know this idea will be rejected vehemently by some readers, but > for me, "Seeker" combined with Harry's repeated demands for "the > truth" suggests the biblical "Seek, and ye shall find" and a line\ > from the Episcopal Holy Eucharist, "For all who proclaim the > Gospel, and all who seek the truth." Harry obviously isn't > proclaiming the Gospel (and I don't think JKR is, either, though > certainly I see an emphasis on redemption and the afterlife) but I > do think that his depiction as a Seeker in the previous books has > been leading up to his role as Seeker of the Truth in this one. Jen: I don't think of the story as only Christian, but essentially I agree that Harry grows into a true Seeker in DH. His lack of curiosity and interest in questioning most of what Dumbledore offers needs to be overturned in DH in order for Harry's sacrifice to be his own decision. All of Dumbledore's actions lead to this point, first by devising the protection so Harry could live long enough to have a choice, then by distancing himself from Harry in OOTP, imparting everything he knew about Voldemort and Horcruxes in HBP, and finally, leaving everything else Harry would need to work out for himself in his will. Or, as you said: Carol: > Exactly. I think Harry's search for "the truth" (which he thinks he > finds after seeing Snape's memories, and certainly, once he figures > out how to open the Snitch, he knows everything he needs to know for > the *first* confrontation with LV) culminates with "King's Cross," > in which DD, as usual, provides the last pieces of the puzzle, but > this time, Harry puts them together himself, as we see in the final > confrontation when Harry rather than DD provides the exposition that > solves the central mystery for the reader. > Carol, hoping she hasn't jumped the gun by not waiting for SSS's > post, which she's eagerly looking forward to. Jen, thinking SSS is really busy right now and may not get to it soon so perhaps we can keep throwing stuff out there. ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 18:28:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:28:33 -0000 Subject: Hating Dumbledore WAS Re: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177690 > Prep0strus: > I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this point, > especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is not > perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good. It sounds like > many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition, > arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own means. > But, his means are for GOOD. Now, well meaning intentions don't mean > you can't still do evil - one could even argue that his intentions > with Grindelwald had some amount of altruistic intent, at least in his > own mind. but towards the end of his life, Dumbledore was devoted to > defeating Voldemort - yes, he was willing to sacrifice other people > for that cause. But he was also willing to sacrifice himself. He > didn't trust other's judgment as much as his own, but how many people > do? He was the most powerful, the one who had defeated a previous evil > dark lord... > > I'm not defending everything Dumbledore does. He's certainly flawed. > but a 'great villain'? There's nothing villainous about him. > Alla: Well, do not ask me. I will take Dumbledore over Snape **any time** for precisely the reasons you described. Now, I obviously cannot read anybody's mind, but I can certainly take a guess ( and be wrong too) as to one of the reasons why Dumbledore may be hated. My guess is because Dumbledore was not kind to Snape all these years. Again, this is just a guess and I am not saying that this is the reason of why people may hate him, just a **guess**. If I am wrong, I am wrong. Me - I was extremely happy with how Dumbledore treated Snape. I thought this was exactly what Snape deserved at the time he came to Dumbledore and later on, I thought Snape could leave at any time if he so wished. He did not, that at least made me see that Snape really wanted to atone for what he did. So, yeah, I do not know why, besides the fact that sometimes you just like one character and hate another of course. I mean, just as you said I am far from defending several Dumbledore's actions and if you see my old posts, I was very happy to critique him a lot, heheh, Dumbledore I mean. Of course Dumbledore was ready to sacrifice people for the greater good, but as we discussed on OTC I see for example no difference in him doing that and the similar (to me) character doing that in Dark is Rising. I see no difference between Dumbledore doing that and Gandalf sending Frodo on the dangerous, horrible path where he will suffer. Am I happy with Dumbledore doing that? Of course not. But to me the key is of course that I believe that he loved Harry and wanted him to survive and save WW at the same time. Did he deceive Harry at least by omission? Sure he did. Was he prepared to sacrifice Harry? I do not think so, I think he at least thought that the possibility of his survival is high. I guess another thing is that even though I never thought of Dumbledore doing the deeds he was discovering to be doing in DH, I never thought of him as NOT doing some manipulative deeds either. Eh, not making sense. Before DH I thought of Dumbledore as overall good man but who did some REALLY bad things to Harry (did not try to help Sirius, left Harry at Dursleys, etc). But I have read some theories here that speculated of Dumbledore manipulativeness as much higher than I could ever imagine. Dumbledore engineered the prophecy and deliberately let Snape go to DE, staff like that. To me, Dumbledore that was revealed was somehow in between the two ( What I thought of him and what I thought he never will be). No, he did not become evil to me at all, because if he is by the reason of his past, then, Snape is so much more evil then, I believe that Dumbledore worked all his life to do the opposite things to what he thought of doing with Grindelwald. Was he uncovered to be much more manipulative in general than I thought? SURE, he was, but it is still not enough to make me hate him all together. In fact because of what I learned about him, I like him so much more now. If as I think his affection for Harry became first affection he experienced for the longest time and he had to struggle with balancing his manipulativeness and his love for Harry, if I am right. Love that and as I said many times, love his remorse in King cross. JMO, Alla From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 3 20:56:33 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:56:33 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <4702A3CB.4070704@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177691 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > I've been combing through the P for > Grownups archives, been to numerous > websites discussing the UCs, and as > far as I can see, prior to DH the > vast majority of HP fandom simply > accepted the label at face value > (not even you, AFAICT, suggested otherwise). Actually I did suggest otherwise. I sent the following to this group more than 2 years ago on August 7 2005: "I think Harry will use Avada Kedavra on Snape and Voldemort, and I hope he will too. Harry is in a war and you can't get squeamish in a war, if you do the enemy will win and you will end up dead. In the real world millions of young men just as nice as Harry have been forced to face this harsh truth and for JKR to shy away from it would be cowardly. If JKR makes Harry get all warm and fuzzy when he confronts his enemies in the final big confrontation we all know is coming in book 7 it will be a dreadful book." I was wrong about who Harry would use the curses on but I still believe my general point was absolutely correct. If I looked I'm certain I could find much earlier examples, although it might not have been posted to this Potter group. I specifically remember vigorously defending Harry's use of the curse right after book 5 came out. But yes, you're right about it being an unpopular view, I was about the only one who defended Harry, most were appalled. I'm a little less certain but I think right after book 4 I wrote a post saying Harry should study the Unforgivables and use them when needed; if I didn't write it I certainly thought it. > Since the use of Unforgivables by > Good Guys in book 7 is precisely > the point of dispute, it cannot be > used as a premise for your argument. You were complaining about inconsistency, you said that suddenly out of the blue the good guys started using "Unforgivables" in book 7. I see no inconsistency because I think of Harry as a good guy (you may disagree) and he's been using them for three books. > I hope you're not suggesting revenge > exonerates illegal acts. I would say that the question of legality is moot because in book 7 all laws were made by Voldemort. If you're asking if I think revenge is ALWAYS immoral I'd have to say no. > Silly me for assuming the name > of the things was relevant. It is a bit silly because in 7 books you can't point to one example of somebody refusing to forgive someone for using an "Unforgivable". Not one example! "Draco" means dragon but I don't think Draco is a dragon. Eggplant From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 3 22:57:06 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:57:06 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177692 > > Magpie: I don't consider Snape the more admirable of the two; they're > screwed up in different ways and objectively Dumbledore pretty much > spent most of his life working for the right things while Snape > joined a murderous organization of terrorists supporting a maniac > and spread nastiness wherever he could outside of his one single- > minded quest to make right getting Lily killed. So he makes a more > interesting good guy than villain, while I think Dumbledore makes a > more interesting villain. As a villain all his goodness gets > deliciously twisted and creepy. As a good guy who's just supposed to > be flawed it's like the twisted creepiness and egotism that I sense > is just supposed to be a forgivable mistake. > Prep0strus: It's an interesting way of looking at it, but not that surprising, really. Villains I guess make the most interesting heroes and heroes make the most interesting villains because it means there's already such a duality of character. In order to accommodate both of what we're shown, there had to be real complexity. It obviously doesn't work without a believable backstory - can you just imagine Arthur showing up and slaughtering people one day, or Voldemort explaining how this was all part of his larger plan to make babies laugh? But with appropriate background, a one dimensional character becomes ambivalent. I'm not sure it really applies in Harry Potter... certainly not with our stated good guys. Though I see where taken a little further, in a different story, Dumbledore, Hermione... these and others could be interesting villains. And I suppose it's part of the attraction to Snape and Draco. Though, for me, both of them wind up being more pathetic the more I see of them, not more interesting. So in the end, their being 'good' intrigues me no more than their being 'evil'. I think it's possible to have interesting duality in a character that is on one stated side, in a character we don't have to adjust our opinions about or who doesn't switch allegiances. But I certainly agree that a character that walks the edge or defies expectations can be quite interesting. Having said all that, in this story, Dumbledore isn't a villain, and it's strange to me that he appears more villainous to some than our Slytherin friends. In bizarro world, he would be quite the adversary, though. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 02:12:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:12:14 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177693 With the discussion of House Elf welfare on a different thread I was reminded of some questions about Kreacher. After the Trio's MoM raid to liberate the locket from dear Delores, may she develop a deadly strain of spattergroit, they leave 12 GP for good. Leaving Kreacher there also. Now, was there some off-page instruction to Kreacher to go back to Hogwarts if the Trio doesn't return? Because, of course that's the next place we see him, leading the Hogwarts Elves into the battle. I remember thinking at the time that poor Kreacher was left alone in that house with the still obnoxious and quite vocal Mrs. Black Portrait. I feared for him lapsing back into his old ways of following that raging banshee's orders. I also wondered why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to him during the camping trip from hell? It seems an elf, whose magic the MoM doesn't seem to track in any way, could have been a very valuable member of the team. Cooking, finding and/or acquiring provisions, scouting, etc. are just a few of the things that come to mind. He moved about pretty freely it seems while hunting down and capturing Mundungus. It seems like a lost oppurtunity to me. Mike, who wonders why Harry didn't think of summoning Kreacher when he was held captive in the Malfoy Manor. After all, two Elves would have been better than one From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 4 02:19:34 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:19:34 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > I also wondered why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to him during the > camping trip from hell? It seems an elf, whose magic the MoM doesn't > seem to track in any way, could have been a very valuable member of > the team. Cooking, finding and/or acquiring provisions, scouting, > etc. are just a few of the things that come to mind. Allie: They were in constant mortal danger, I don't think they would have wanted to risk Kreacher's safety as well. Poor Dobby! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 4 03:26:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:26:08 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177695 zanooda: > I believe that LV's curse didn't rebound in the forest. If it did, > Harry wouldn't have "died" and the soul-bit wouldn't be destroyed. > What happened in the forest seems very different from the events in > GH, when Harry wasn't hurt, but LV became Vapor!Mort. I think that > the AK worked all right in the forest. > > As for why, I only can guess that the curse didn't rebound because > Harry himself wanted to die. OK, "wanted" is the wrong word here, > but he *intended* to die, it was his choice to die, he didn't fight > for his life, so the blood protection didn't protect him this time. > But I still don't understand what happened to LV in this case. If > he wasn't hit by the rebounding curse, why was he knocked out? Why > did he also had a near-death experience? It could be explained by > the loss of the soul-bit, but then, why nothing of the sort > happened to him when Nagini died? She was also a living Horcrux and > I think LV had a link with her as well. Jen: I'm a novice in these discussions, decided it's time to take the plunge.;) I read it all pretty simply and know there's a gap in my logic somewhere but I'm not sure where: The AK killed the soul piece, almost killed Harry in the process, that caused the blood protection to kick in, and the blood connection is why Voldemort went with Harry to his near-death experience. I understood that the AK didn't rebound because it 'found' part of LV inside Harry to hit instead. So Harry wasn't protected from LV killing him in other ways, but LV taking his blood would protect him after he turned 17 if Voldemort attempted to AK Harry and Harry chose not to defend himself. Then it would kick in because of his sacrifice. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 04:21:33 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:21:33 -0000 Subject: A recommendation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177696 For all those suffering from Harry Potter withdrawal now that the last book has been published I suggest you read a wonderful novel about magic called "The Prestige" by Christopher Priest. It's absolutely first rate! They made a movie out of the book and the movie may be even better than the book. Eggplant From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 07:08:53 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:08:53 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Prep0strus: > > I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this > point, > > especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is > not > > perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good. It sounds > like > > many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition, > > arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own > means. > > But, his means are for GOOD. > Montavilla47: I don't think of arrogance as a Slytherin trait so much as a Gryffindor trait. I may be somewhat subversive in thinking that way. Ambition and secrecy, yes, I associate those with Slytherin. And yes, Dumbledore's aims are good. Who could argue (reasonably) against tolerance and inclusion? Who wouldn't support the idea of helping werewolves assimilate into society? Sending embassies to giants and so forth. Who but the basest bigot would balk at treating Muggleborns with respect? What bugs me about Dumbledore is, I suppose, his utter lack of humility and that he does talk as though he's taking responsibility when he really isn't. It's cute in PS/SS when he talks about how clever his trap with the mirror was. And it's very satisfying at the end with the dramatic changing of the colors to represent Gryffindor's victory. Until you look at it from the other side and realize he had days to award those points and that waiting until the last moment was pure showmanship that humiliated the Slytherins and made a hash of the hard work the other students in all the other Houses did to carefully accumulate their points. I bought that Dumbledore had his reasons for alienating himself from Harry in OotP, but it made me very uncomfortable that he made Snape teach Harry Occlumency. Not because I think Snape was using it as an excuse to torment Harry--although if that was an issue, it should have addressed. But because I didn't see how it wasn't putting Snape into an impossible situation. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort could look out through Harry's eyes. He'd seen it. How was Snape supposed to maintain his cover in that situation? Then, while Dumbledore tells Harry that the fault was his--he throws in little things like, "It's my fault because I should have realized Snape was too screwed up to deal with you. But it's okay, because you're so filled with love that it wasn't even a problem." So... Dumbledore risked his most valuable spy to teach Harry a skill that Harry didn't need to begin with. Then at the end, he throws in the bit about Harry not getting a prefect badge. Does it really matter at this point? Who cares? But apparently Dumbledore felt the need to make sure Harry knew that he was just that much better than Ron Weasley that he would have gotten the badge if he wasn't needed for saving the world instead. When Dumbledore really started grating on my nerves was in HBP. It starts with Dumbledore lecturing the Dursleys on their poor parenting skills while knocking them in the heads with glasses of mead. Okay, tip number one in making friends and influencing people: If you want someone to listen to what you are saying, try not to distract them by knocking them about the head at the same time. Also, when you ask someone to take in a baby and assume the financial responsibility for raising it, try to provide some friggin' support or else refrain from showing up fifteen years later to scold them for how badly they handled the child you abandonned. Also, the Dursley don't respond well to insults or threats. They do, however, respond to flattery, sincere or not. You're good at flattery, Dumbledore. You use it with Harry all the time. Then there's that bizarre remark about Merope not having Lily's courage. Okay. Again, what's the point of that comparison? It's like the prefect line. Don't be too hard on her, Harry. She wasn't Lily. Instead of: Don't be too hard on her, Harry. She was STARVING and it was the dead of winter and she was dressed in rags and she still managed to do something way harder than you will ever do in your life. Oh, and yeah, pregnant women with no education, skills, looks, money, or self-esteem can't really take care of themselves that well. On the other hand, while I don't necessarily agree with allowing the needs of Remus Lupin to outweigh the loss of Davy's eye, or Draco Malfoy to supercede Kate Bell or Ron Weasley, it really warmed my heart to see Dumbledore reach out to save Draco. Because it seemed that if Dumbledore cared enough to save Draco, then he truly must care for all his students--not just the remarkable Mr. Potter. That was mitigated in DH, when Dumbledore says he prefers that Draco not tear his soul on "my" death. As if it would okay with Dumbledore if Draco tears it on someone else's. But I might be too picky there. I actually like the Grindelwald stuff, even if Arianna and Kendra never really came alive to me as characters. It made sense to me that Dumbledore would have made mistakes in his past and surely he would have developed some humility because of that? I wouldn't have minded Dumbledore being manipulative in DH, if his plans didn't seem so dumb. Like, gathering all the books on Horcuxes and not assigning Harry to read them during HBP. Hermione accio'ing the books from the office after his death wasn't something he planned. It was an accident. But if she hadn't done that, they wouldn't have had the first clue about how to destroy the Horcruxes they didn't know how to find. I could forgive him setting Snape up for murder, except... he also charged Snape with telling Harry about the sacrifice. How was Snape supposed to do that after being killed for the Elder Wand? I dislike that Dumbledore's reaction to Snape's return to the "good side" was "You disgust me!" But what the heck. Maybe that was the best way to handle Snape at that point. I really dislike Dumbledore's implication that Snape was sorted too soon. That implies that Snape was maybe a little too good for the house he was Head of! That's sort of like saying to the star of an WNBA team, "Wow. You're good. Maybe you could have even played on a *boy's* team." Or as Pippin says, "Mighty white of you, Severus." Condescending. Arrogant. No wonder Snape looks stricken. lllllllllll Montavilla47 From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 4 11:44:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:44:59 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177698 "Mike" wrote: Now, was there some off-page > instruction to Kreacher to go back to Hogwarts if the Trio doesn't > return? Because, of course that's the next place we see him, leading the Hogwarts Elves into the battle. Potioncat: Could be that because he was summoned from Hogwarts to tend to Harry at 12 GP, that he could presume an instruction to return to Hogwarts once Harry was gone. It seems the Elves are pretty good at engineering instructions. (Kids can be creative that way too.) >Mike > I remember thinking at the time that poor Kreacher was left alone in > that house with the still obnoxious and quite vocal Mrs. Black > Portrait. I feared for him lapsing back into his old ways of > following that raging banshee's orders. Potioncat: I was concerned that Bella would pay a visit and call upon old loyalties. >Mike > I also wondered why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to him during the > camping trip from hell? snip> > Mike, who wonders why Harry didn't think of summoning Kreacher when > he was held captive in the Malfoy Manor. Potioncat: So did I. As powerful as Elf magic is, you would have thought someone would have put them to better use. Could be that the Wizards don't think of Elves as having that kind of worth. Harry isn't so used to House-Elves, so it didn't occur to him. (convenient for the plot, and all.) But to be honest, when I first finished DH, I thought that was something of a plot hole. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 13:26:27 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:26:27 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177699 Montavilla47: > I really dislike Dumbledore's implication that > Snape was sorted too soon. That implies that > Snape was maybe a little too good for the > house he was Head of! That's sort of like > saying to the star of an WNBA team, "Wow. > You're good. Maybe you could have even > played on a *boy's* team." > > Or as Pippin says, "Mighty white of you, > Severus." > > Condescending. Arrogant. No wonder > Snape looks stricken. lllllllllll > > Montavilla47 > Prep0strus: I agree with much of what you said - I tend to think of it in terms of JKR when I think about how dumb the structure and planning of some things are, and I forget that, within the terms of the story, it is Dumbledore that plans and executes some of the most absurd of her ideas. But I completely disagree with your last statement. In the past week I've posted a lot about what Slytherin means to JKR and what I think it means to most readers, at least subconsciously. Griffindor is not white and Slytherin is not black. These groups cannot be compared to race, or even religion or political affiliation. Slytherin actually IS worse than Griffindor. It is not a view that some characters have. In the world JKR has created, Slytherin represents what is wrong with humanity. It represents intolerance and selfishness and a proclivity for evil. You may not like Dumbledore, but JKR does, and most of the time she has him espouse HER views. When Dumbledore says we may have sorted too soon, he's not being condescending or arrogant. He's saying, Severus, you are brave and good, and it was unfair that you were sorted into the house of evil and cruelty. I don't think Snape is stricken because he is offended, but because he wonders what his life might have been like had he taken a different path and had different opportunities. There are a lot of racial and real world analogies in the books. This isn't one of them. To say that Slytherin vs Griffindor is the same as two races is to deny the fundamental differences JKR assigns to these houses. Every evil deed we see is done by a Slytherin, and every slytherin we see is a jerk. It's not a productive of a backwards society thinking Slytherin is responsible for all its ills. In the evidence we've been shown, Slytherin is responsible for every act of evil that can be attributed to an individual. I see where Dumbledore comes off as arrogant, and I get that many people want Slytherin to actually be an equal group that has different challenges, but that's not the way the Harry Potter world is. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 13:49:45 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 06:49:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4704ef7f.03b48c0a.4908.4e8c@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177700 Montavilla47: On the other hand, while I don't necessarily agree with allowing the needs of Remus Lupin to outweigh the loss of Davy's eye, or Draco Malfoy to supercede Kate Bell or Ron Weasley, it really warmed my heart to see Dumbledore reach out to save Draco. Because it seemed that if Dumbledore cared enough to save Draco, then he truly must care for all his students--not just the remarkable Mr. Potter. Sherry now: Actually, this is where I began to despise DD, and nothing he said in DH has really done anything to change my mind or make me like him again. I always liked Dumbledore, disliked Snape and Draco. After HBP, we debated often on this list, whether or not Snape and Dumbledore knew Draco's task. Now, we know he did know it. Ok, I get giving Draco a chance before he'd done anything. But how could a responsible headmaster, who supposedly cared about all his students allow Draco to roam free and remain at Hogwarts after the first attempt that nearly killed Katie? It's completely inexcusable to me. He should at least have been expelled. Or at least there should have been measures taken, confronted him or something. This is not a reflection on Draco, but on Dumbledore. Dumbledore's failure to act after the first incident is the reason Draco was able to continue, the reason Ron was poisoned, and the eventual reason the death eaters were able to get into Hogwarts. By the end of the series, I pitied Draco. But Dumbledore, I lost all respect for him after the revelations in DH. And not the revelations about his younger years with Grindelwald. As for DD and Snape, The whole Plan makes me want to say back to DD, "You disgust me." He didn't care about Snape's soul or any ramifications by that stunt. He didn't care about what would have happened had an order member surprised Snape and possibly even killed him. He had this glorious plan in his mind and nothing else mattered to him. Then there's DD and Harry. DD would willingly have sacrificed Harry for the so-called greater good. I am not a fan of the greater good thinking. There are times when the good for a few should outweigh the supposed good of the many. Yeah, we had to get rid of Voldemort, but sacrificing a child to do it was a shameful plan, in my opinion anyway. Maybe, he began to suspect that Harry could survive it, but when he conceived his plan, I doubt that he believed Harry would live after the great sacrifice. I admit I have not gotten to The king's cross chapter in my very slow reread of DH, but I left the series being unhappy with DD and not liking his character much at all anymore. Not exactly a villain, because Voldemort is the clear villain, but not a person I could respect any longer. It will probably color all my future readings of earlier books now. I'm glad that my interest was always mostly to do with Harry, because he still came shining through for me by the end, unlike most of the adult main characters. Sherry From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 15:13:11 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:13:11 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > I see where Dumbledore comes off as arrogant, and I get that many > people want Slytherin to actually be an equal group that has different > challenges, but that's not the way the Harry Potter world is. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) > I agree, Adam. What I dislike in Dumbledore does seem to be when he's expressing the moral viewpoint of the author. I don't see why I should like it or him because of that. I agree that Slytherins as blacks doesn't quite fit. What I like about that "mighty white" comparison is not that it equates the Slytherins to blacks and the Gryffindors to whites. It's that easy, breezy assumption that to be one or the other makes you virtuous, and that the other would--were they capable of it, naturally want to be just like you. If the savage could only be civilized, nineteenth century white men thought, then he could be happy, too. And almost like us, although, of course, still inferior. That's tolerance without respect. Yes, I'm forced to admit that JKR did intend Slytherin to represent all that is warped and evil in the world. That the best they can hope for is to be diluted enough in their evil to remain part of the school. But I don't have to like it, or accept it. Also, while there isn't a direct blacks/whites comparison between Slytherin and Gryffindor, there is a disturbingly strong sense of genetic power running through the Potterverse. Children do seem to be sorted into the Houses of their parents. The only cases where we *know* this didn't happen was in Sirius and Tonks's case-and we only know about Tonks because JKR said so on her website. It's not within the canon of the books. Harry was sorted into his parents' House. The hesitation by the Hat was due to the mutation caused by Voldemort. Tom Riddle's parent probably didn't go to Hogwarts, but his ancestor was Slytherin. Blood will out. All the Weasley children were sorted into Gryffindor--that seemed to a family tradition. Draco goes into the House of his parents. Moreover, every time we see a child and parent, they are described as "resembling" each other, or the child being a "miniature" of the parent. In the Potterverse, blood is destiny. Not only does genetics determine if you are magical, it can strongly influence whether or not you are "evil." If that isn't next door to racism, I don't know what is. But, yes, in JKR's story, you do have a choice. You can choose not to be evil. Just make that choice before you're twelve. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck. Montavilla47 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 4 15:50:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:01 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: <4704ef7f.03b48c0a.4908.4e8c@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177702 > Sherry now: > > Actually, this is where I began to despise DD, and nothing he said in DH has > really done anything to change my mind or make me like him again. I always > liked Dumbledore, disliked Snape and Draco. After HBP, we debated often on > this list, whether or not Snape and Dumbledore knew Draco's task. Now, we > know he did know it. Ok, I get giving Draco a chance before he'd done > anything. But how could a responsible headmaster, who supposedly cared > about all his students allow Draco to roam free and remain at Hogwarts after > the first attempt that nearly killed Katie? It's completely inexcusable to > me. He should at least have been expelled. Or at least there should have > been measures taken, confronted him or something. This is not a reflection > on Draco, but on Dumbledore. Dumbledore's failure to act after the first > incident is the reason Draco was able to continue, the reason Ron was > poisoned, and the eventual reason the death eaters were able to get into > Hogwarts. By the end of the series, I pitied Draco. But Dumbledore, I lost > all respect for him after the revelations in DH. And not the revelations > about his younger years with Grindelwald. Magpie: This is the thing that continues to amaze me about the Draco story. Because I thought the point was that here Dumbledore was demonstrating exactly what you mention later, that sometimes it's right to put an individual above the many. I thought he was basically abandoning his flock to search for the one lost sheep--and that of course that story would play out in that way, that Draco was brought back into the flock thanks to Dumbledore's handling of him, the knowledge he was able to gain about himself given the time and space by Dumbledore, even though it put other people at risk. But in DH, frankly, I got a completely different impression, especially based on the conversation with DD and Snape. I didn't think, as others did, that the problem was that DD was just saying he didn't want Draco to tear his soul on him but didn't care if he did it on somebody else, exactly, but I think that reading comes from the same feeling that I got in the scene, which was that Dumbledore did not actually care about Draco. He seemed to see him as basically as much of a hapless pawn as Voldemort did, though this led to much better treatment of him on Dumbledore's part of course. It made Dumbledore far smaller than I assumed he was in HBP (which goes along with my general feeling about DH). Draco not killing him fit in with his plan; Snape killing him did. I think Adam is right in that Slytherin represents the baser forms of humanity--even their supposed house traits imo only exist in Slytherin in their negative form (good examples of ambition and cunning are found in Gryffindor). But I don't particularly like watching them just get cleverly manipulated by good guys or just used by the author to good ends. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 16:23:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:23:01 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0710021832w44eabb7fva64684e38280b348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177703 > >>Betsy Hp: > > JKR could have used Marietta's story (or Sirius's or Regulus's or > Draco's or Percy's) to explore family loyalty and when (if ever) it > should be broken and are there right ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. > She didn't. Instead it came down to a personal cult allied to > Dumbledore (and then Harry) that was the deciding factor. Were you > breaking to stand with Dumbledore? Then it's good. If you were > breaking to stand against Dumbledore, then it's bad. > >>Debbie: > I've thought long and hard about JKR's apparent insistence on > loyalty to Dumbledore. > > Frankly, that sort of thing does seem at first blush to imply a > cult of personality. > But perhaps a better way to look at it is to ask why Dumbledore > inspires that kind of loyalty. > > What draws people to Dumbledore's leadership is the cause he > represents and his record of success against Grindelwald. He is an > extremely powerful wizard, but uses his power and cleverness > against Dark Wizards. > Betsy Hp: I agree that this is how JKR wrote the books. I think that's probably what she meant by that "epitome of goodness" statement. Not that Dumbledore is personally the essence of goodness, but that he is the symbolic representation of the "good" side. Just as Voldemort is the symbolic representation of the "bad" side. It's not enough for me as a reader, however. Probably because the "good" side found pretty much every personal button I have and stomped all over them. So I kind of needed to see some personal goodness rather than symbolic. Since I didn't find it, I'm pretty much left with the creepy cult feelings, though I know that wasn't JKR's intent. > >>Debbie: > > As for Marietta, I find fault with Hermione's jinx, and JKR's > apparent approval of a permanent SNEAK scar, but Hermione did > clearly state the goal of the DA in the Hogs Head. > > And Marietta signed. In that moment, she chose fighting Voldemort > vs. supporting the Ministry. Betsy Hp: Again, I agree that this is how JKR meant for her story to be read. For myself, personally, I didn't like that Hermione was so sneaky about the whole thing. And I thought it was odd that JKR tossed in Cho's comment that Marietta's mother worked at the Ministry and it put her under a lot of personal pressure... and then nothing. Why raise the issue if it's not an issue that's ever going to be addressed? Why not make it a grades thing or something Marietta did for obvious personal gain? Why even throw a parental figure into the mix if you're not going to do anything with it? > >>Debbie: > And lastly, I don't think Dumbledore's Army, despite its name, was > ever a Dumbledore cult. It always revolved around Harry, who was > the attraction that drew people to the first meeting, and who was > formally elected leader at the first official meeting in the RoR. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, it was a Harry cult. Or that's how it came across to me, with the signing away of your soul and everything. But again, that's because I wasn't all that impressed with the folks running the show. They were sneaky and cruel and expected too much from their followers, IMO. (I almost put "asked too much of", but that's where the sneaky came in. I don't think Hermione honestly asked.) > >>Debbie: > Neville uses the DA as a rallying cry in DH, but his actions > reflect the lessons that he learned from *Harry* and his loyalty is > to Harry, whom he considers the true leader of the resistance. Betsy Hp: Which was odd to me because Harry wasn't leading anything, IMO. He was moping around in a little house in the woods, eating Hermione's cooking and waiting for someone to drop a clue or two in his lap, IMO. So another example of a symbol of goodness not living up to his title for me personally and leaving a bad cult-y taste in my mouth. > >>Debbie > suspecting that JKR believes the Blacks illustrate the complexities > of family loyalty Betsy Hp: Heh. I think you're correct. So, IMO, she failed rather miserably. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 17:05:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:05:02 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: <4704ef7f.03b48c0a.4908.4e8c@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177704 > Sherry now: > Then there's DD and Harry. DD would willingly have sacrificed Harry for the > so-called greater good. I am not a fan of the greater good thinking. There > are times when the good for a few should outweigh the supposed good of the > many. Yeah, we had to get rid of Voldemort, but sacrificing a child to do > it was a shameful plan, in my opinion anyway. Maybe, he began to suspect > that Harry could survive it, but when he conceived his plan, I doubt that he > believed Harry would live after the great sacrifice. I admit I have not > gotten to The king's cross chapter in my very slow reread of DH, but I left > the series being unhappy with DD and not liking his character much at all > anymore. Not exactly a villain, because Voldemort is the clear villain, but > not a person I could respect any longer. It will probably color all my > future readings of earlier books now. I'm glad that my interest was always > mostly to do with Harry, because he still came shining through for me by the > end, unlike most of the adult main characters. Alla: Heeee, I began to truly despise Dumbledore's action ( no still not him in general) not even after him leaving Harry at Dursleys per se, but when somebody reminded me of Sirius' remark that Potters meant him to be not just Harry's godfather but his guardian. And Dumbledore knew it and took Harry from Sirius anyways. I mean, please, I do not want to debate Sirius' merits as a guardian, I have my opinion on it and it is pretty much set in stone ( not that I am saying that people should not talk about it, I have no such right obviously, I am just saying that I personally am not interested in debating it), I believe that Sirius' love for Harry would made him pretty good one. The reason why I am bringing it up is just to say that this action of Dumbledore playing god with Harry and Sirius' lives I consider to be quite despicable. Yes, I know Sirius was set on revenge against Peter. NO, I do not think that if Hagrid was not there, he would have taken Harry with him to do the revenge thing. Sirius still argued with Hagrid that night. No, I am not taking away his share of blame for not fighting enough and just taking Harry and dissappearing with Harry. I am just saying that Dumbledore played with lives that night that I think was despicable. It is funny, because for quite some time I managed to completely forget about this remark of Sirius and thought that Dumbledore was just doing his best to make sure Harry stays with relatives. So, yeah, moving on then we had Dumbledore putting Harry with Dursleys which I COULD understand, hated it as I am - keeping Harry alive and all that, but not visiting him and making sure he is okay all those years? NO, despicable again in my view. Heeee, so I suppose when in DH we had all those revelations I can no longer even think of Dumbledore as pitome of goodness, like AT ALL. I see a screwed up man, a man who did care for wellfare of WW in general, while willing to sacrifice individual lives in process. And since I do not see him as epitome of goodness and him Knowing that Harry was a greater man, his remorse hits all the right notes with me at the end, since a man who is just a regular man, I do not know, it is easier to forgive, maybe? I am not a fan of for the greater good thinking myself and when somebody tells me that it is how it is often done in RL, I for some reason always remember how state of Israel fought for the hostages in Uganda ( just one example), showing that every life **counts**. BUT sometimes indeed the generals who do not care for individual lives, hate it as I am win the wars and that is what I see Dumbledore trying to do. I do not see him fighting for power either, since I think that lesson he learned well in his youth ( see refusing Ministry position), I think he indeed wanted WW to become better place and here comes child for whom Dumbledore started to feel affection for the first time in how many years, IMO. Everything else we know, heheh. Alla. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 17:19:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:19:57 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: Sistermagpie: > But in DH, frankly, I got a completely different impression, > especially based on the conversation with DD and Snape. I didn't > think, as others did, that the problem was that DD was just saying > he didn't want Draco to tear his soul on him but didn't care if he > did it on somebody else, exactly, but I think that reading comes > from the same feeling that I got in the scene, which was that > Dumbledore did not actually care about Draco. He seemed to see him > as basically as much of a hapless pawn as Voldemort did, though this > led to much better treatment of him on Dumbledore's part of course. > It made Dumbledore far smaller than I assumed he was in HBP (which > goes along with my general feeling about DH). Draco not killing him > fit in with his plan; Snape killing him did. Montavilla47: Yes, that's a better way of putting it. In HBP, it seemed like Dumbledore wanted to save Draco. Post-DH, it was more like Draco was an inconvenience. I really thought Dumbledore had a plan with Draco. I thought he was trying to make in-roads with the DE power base by winning over Draco, Narcissa, and eventually Lucius. I really thought that was the point behind the Unbreakable Vow. It's not like it couldn't be that--and we just didn't get to hear that part. But, like Draco's role in the RoR, we have to imagine it. According to what's on the page, Draco's soul wasn't worth saving for its own sake. Neither was Snape's. I try, but I can't separate Dumbledore from the idea of a higher power--because there is no higher power in Potterworld--unless it's Love. Or possibly Harry. And wow--a higher power that loves only one person in the world. That's so bleak and depressing. > I think Adam is right in that Slytherin represents the baser forms > of humanity--even their supposed house traits imo only exist in > Slytherin in their negative form (good examples of ambition and > cunning are found in Gryffindor). But I don't particularly like > watching them just get cleverly manipulated by good guys or just > used by the author to good ends. Again, I agree that that's the message. But I have the hardest time dealing with that. I'm wracking my brain to think of a piece of children's literature that does anything similar. I can't think of a single example. Roald Dahl is mentioned as an author who can successfully create unpleasant, nasty comic villains. But those villains are always individually awfully--not awful because of any group affiliation (although I suppose he probably has awful "families"). Am I being blinkered by the U.S. culture? The closest thing I can think of is how in Movies and T.V., school "soche" groups are pitted against each other. Nerds vs. Jocks. The Jocks are always unpleasant bullies. Odd girls vs. In-girls. The In-girls are always mean and petty. But in those stories, we're usually supposed to see these divisions as childish--painfully important to the participants, but something you outgrow. I can't imagine a principal saying to the drama teacher, "I'm starting to respect you. What a pity you ended up sitting with the drama kids all those years." Well, I can imagine it. But I'd think he was a real jerk. Montavilla47 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 17:50:39 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:50:39 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177706 > Prep0strus: > > And I suppose it's part of the attraction to Snape and Draco. > Though, for me, both of them wind up being more pathetic the more I > see of them, not more interesting. So in the end, their > being 'good' intrigues me no more than their being 'evil'. > Betsy Hp: Interestingly enough, I agree. What I loved about, what intrigued me about, both Snape and Draco was their promise. And as of DH, IMO, neither promise was realized. Snape was reduced to (or turned out to be, since the Snape I imagined wasn't the canon Snape at all, unfortunately) a rather pathetic little man, blindly following the instructions of a portait, while obsessing over a dead woman. (OMG! Snape is Kreature!!) And Draco never got off the tower, IMO. He remained in that uneasy grey area between boyhood and manhood and never took a step towards change. Forever trapped in "bad faith". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism) So there went two of JKR's more interesting characters, IMO. (And it was interest created from my own imagination, I do recognize that.) > >>Prep0strus: > Having said all that, in this story, Dumbledore isn't a villain, and > it's strange to me that he appears more villainous to some than our > Slytherin friends. Betsy Hp: Hmm... I wouldn't say Dumbledore is *more* villainous than the Slytherins. They're equated with Nazis after all and it's kind of hard to sink lower than that kind of bad. It's just, IMO, Dumbledore is a really crappy good guy. As has been pointed out, he's very careless with other people's lives. And if it serves him to let you twist in the wind, in the wind you will twist. And I agree with what Magpie said upthread. If Dumbledore is called on his behaviour, he turns it around so that he's suddenly the victim, as Magpie illustrated. Hermione is of the same ilk, IMO. She can be incredibly callous with other people's lives, if it serves her purpose. And she will also play victim if it suites her, IMO. One example would be her tears for herself because her parents won't remember her if she dies, but no acknowledgement that she's messed around with their minds. Another example is her tears when Ron responds to her mocking him by mocking her right back in HBP. I think, for me, because there's no self-examination on the part of the good guys, they kind of fail to interest me as characters. Or go right over into creeping me out. Not because their behavior is *worse* than the bad guys, but because I'm supposed to be rooting for these people. And I think the interest in seeing Dumbledore or Hermione as villains is because it'd be wonderful to see them actually *challenged*. Forced to walk the talk they've been spouting for so long. Which would, in turn, make them more interesting as they actually struggled with things, rather than sort of sailed through comfortable in their white hats. Heh. In other words, I'd kind of like an entirely different book. Betsy Hp From lmkos at earthlink.net Thu Oct 4 18:41:35 2007 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:41:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177707 Adam wrote: >Griffindor is not white and Slytherin is not black. These groups >cannot be compared to race, or even religion or political affiliation. Lenore: In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective viewpoint. It really says less about Slytherin than it does about the Gryffindor attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions than anything else. Adam: >Slytherin actually IS worse than Griffindor. It is not a view that >some characters have. In the world JKR has created, Slytherin >represents what is wrong with humanity. It represents intolerance and >selfishness and a proclivity for evil. Lenore: That is a view which makes it awfully convenient for the other three-fourths of humanity! They will never have to look at their own misthoughts, misperceptions, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, etc. because they have such a convenient and willing scapegoat upon which they can project all of their own selfishness and proclivities for evil, and intolerance. As is typical of such dynamics, they have no idea that this is what they are doing. The Gryffindors are, in a word, enablers who make sure that the Slytherins stay in their place and continue to carry out their role as scapegoats-- as Objects upon which evil is projected, in order that the three-fourths can carry on their lives in the comfort of a delusional "goodness". Of course, anyone can be "good", as long as they are heaping their own errors onto someone else and letting them carry the load (the cross?). I suspect that this is how we crucify one another.... It takes more courage than Gryffindor has, to look within and to face with total honestly what one finds there. (It takes a different kind of courage than Gryffs have, I mean.) And, no, I am not saying that all humanity is evil; I'm saying that all humanity has a share in responsibility for whatever is experienced in this world... (snip) Adam: >To say that Slytherin vs Griffindor is the same as >two races is to deny the fundamental differences JKR assigns to these >houses. Every evil deed we see is done by a Slytherin, and every >slytherin we see is a jerk. It's not a productive of a backwards >society thinking Slytherin is responsible for all its ills. In the >evidence we've been shown, Slytherin is responsible for every act of >evil that can be attributed to an individual. Yes, that is the lie which we are expected to believe, it seems. It was because it is such a blatant lie that I really expected and hoped in the final book that it would be exposed as the lie it is. Lenore From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Oct 4 18:50:08 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:50:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A recommendation Message-ID: <23658856.1191523808433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177708 From: eggplant107 >For all those suffering from Harry Potter withdrawal now that the last >book has been published I suggest you read a wonderful novel about >magic called "The Prestige" by Christopher Priest. It's absolutely >first rate! They made a movie out of the book and the movie may be >even better than the book. Bart: The movie was certainly different from the book, although it had more to do with art than magic. As someone who was quite knowledgeable about the history of stage magic, I was asked by my wife numerous questions about things mentioned in the book. When I admitted that I had never heard the term "the prestige" in reference to stage magic, I felt MUCH better when I heard an interview where Christopher Priest stated that he made up the usage of the term. Which just goes to show you that if you claim to be an expert in something, and you don't know the answer to a question, it is better to admit that you don't know, rather than to try and bluff your way through. Nobody knows EVERYTHING about a subject. On the other hand, the book version of the Prestige brings up a problem that the movie version avoids, which, by strange coincidence, is a theme that is very important in the Harry Potter novels, yet annoyingly disregarded by JKR: What is a soul? In the final two books, and, by implication, the first five, the idea of souls is extremely important, yet there is no attempt to define what it means. This is notable in the Harry Potter novels, as the soul is treated as a concrete thing, actually separable from the body. There's an old philosophical puzzle. You take a ship. You remove a board from it and replace it with a new board. You continue to do this one board at a time, until every board on the ship has been replaced with a new board. Then, you take the old boards, and reconstruct the ship with them. The question is, "Which one is the original ship?" In Harry Potter, the question is not only "What is a soul?", but, "What is the atom of the soul?" Did anybody else notice that diary Tom seemed to have a bigger soul piece than Morty did? Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:07:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:07:09 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts - Summoning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177709 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > "Mike" wrote: > > > Now, was there some off-page instruction to > > Kreacher to go back to Hogwarts if the Trio doesn't > > return? Because, of course that's the next place we > > see him, leading the Hogwarts Elves into the battle. > > Potioncat: > Could be that because he was summoned from Hogwarts to > tend to Harry at 12 GP, that he could presume an > instruction to return to Hogwarts once Harry was gone. > It seems the Elves are pretty good at engineering > instructions. (Kids can be creative that way too.) > bboyminn: True, Harry summoned Kreacher to 12 Grimmauld Place to ask him about the locket, but I don't recall Harry every rescinding his order for Kreacher to work at Hogwarts. So, without clear instructions to the contrary, Kreacher was probably free to move between the School and the Black house. I suspect, that Kreacher got wind of the impending Battle of Hogwarts, or perhaps sensed that Harry was in danger, and went to the school. > ... > > > > Mike > > I also wondered why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to > > him during the camping trip from hell? > > > > Mike, who wonders why Harry didn't think of > > summoning Kreacher when he was held captive in the > > Malfoy Manor. > > Potioncat: > So did I. As powerful as Elf magic is, you would have > thought someone would have put them to better use. ... bboyminn: On why Harry didn't think of summon Kreacher to join them on the camping trip, I think they actually did think of it. I recall right after Hermione took them to the first location. It was mentioned that they were afraid to summon Kreacher because a DE might come along with him. They apparated away after the Raid on the Ministry during which they brought a DE back with them, and more importantly, they brought him inside the protection barrier on Grimmauld Place. Meaning, by letting him in on the Secret, he could potentially be inside the House, and slim but possibly, might be able to bring others into the house. They feared that if the called Kreacher that a DE would latch on to him and be taken along for the ride, taken directly to the Trio. So, at the very beginning they rule out calling Kreacher, and stuck to that rule for the entire trip. Though personally, unless a DE chained himself to Kreacher 24 hours a day. It would seem that summoning Kreacher at 3 AM would have been reasonably safe. As to why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to the Malfoy House, I think he just plain didn't think of it. Harry has only been an elf owner for a little while, and I don't think the idea appeals to him. So, he has made an on-going effort not to call Kreacher for every little thing. If fact, I think he has made an effort to do his best to forget that Kreacher even exists. So, in the heat of the moment, it didn't occur to him. Though very speculative, I wonder if it didn't have something to do with Dobby. By that I mean, Dobby was once a Malfoy elf. He would have had permission to come and go from Malfoy Manor. Kreacher would likely not have that permission. Could be part of the House-Elf code of conduct that you don't enter a house uninvited or something along that line. On better using the House-Elves, I whole heartedly agree, I had been envisioning Harry enlisting the House-Elves in the Battle of Hogwarts. They have powerful magic and would have been a great asset. But, I think two things complicated the matter. First, wizards don't really think of House-Elves all that much. They are meant to go about their duties without being seen. Second, I don't think House- Elves can freely use their magic. That is, they must have expressed permission from their master to perform magic of various types. I think that is why the House-Elves attacked with kitchen knives instead of magic. They didn't have specific permission to use magic to defend Hogwarts against Death Eaters. I think a wise person would have gone down to them and given them both a choice as to whether to participate in the battle or not, and then given them all full permission to use any and all magic to defend themselves and the school. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:19:45 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:19:45 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177710 > > Lenore: > In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin > is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective viewpoint. It > really says less about Slytherin than it does about the Gryffindor > attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions than anything > else. Prep0strus: But that's been my point - it's not the 'Griffindor perception'. It's reality as it exists in the book. It is not a 'viewpoint' or a 'way of looking at things'. IMO, it's the truth of the wizarding world, as told by JKR. Lenore: > Yes, that is the lie which we are expected to believe, it seems. > It was because it is such a blatant lie that I really expected and > hoped in the final book that it would be exposed as the lie it is. > Prep0strus: But it wasn't. And so it's not a lie. It's truth. It's reality. It may not be what many of us were hoping for, but that's how it is. The evil of Slytherin is not the responsibility of Griffindor - it is inherent to Slytherin. It's not a ruse, and it's not sleight of hand. I believe that JKR took the qualities she finds wrong and distasteful, and imbued them into one particular house. Then she created every character in that house to represent those ideas, to lesser or greater extent, but never allowing herself to go so far as to create a character within that house who can be good, and kind, and nice. They are tragically flawed because they exist within the construct she has created. Every time something evil was done, it was done by members of this house. I think a lot of people thought that by the end we would learn that in reality, there are good and evil Slytherins, mean and nice Slytherins. That that is true of all the other houses as well. That there was more to being a Slytherin than selfish ambition and pureblooded bigotry. But there isn't. There never was. So it can't be a lie. And a lie we are 'expected to believe'? Like JKR is pulling a giant Andy Kaufman-esque trick on us all? No. I don't think one has to like the world she has created, but it doesn't make it something that it's not. Griffindors cannot be blamed for how they think of Slytherins because they are RIGHT. Slytherins ARE bad and wrong and represent what is wrong. They DO represent prejudice and cruelty. This is not a statement on Griffindors and how they are prone to prejudice and thinking - that would be a different story. In this story, Slytherins represent what is wrong with the world, and the Griffindors and others who fight against that (including even the extraordinarily flawed Slytherins who are only good by virtue of their non-Slytherin qualities but do fight on the side of good) are in the right. They are also flawed, but they are fighting with what JKR perceives as wrong in the world - and that is the ideals of Slytherin, most perfectly represented in Tom Riddle. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:24:24 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:24:24 -0000 Subject: Diary!Tom/Soul Pieces, WAS: A recommendation In-Reply-To: <23658856.1191523808433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: <<>> Did anybody else notice that diary Tom seemed to have a bigger soul piece than Morty did? > > Bart > ***Katie: I did notice that. My assumption about the reasons behind that have to do with the way making Horcruxes works. Assuming the ring came before the diary- which I think makes sense - since I think Harry says that TR Sr. was the first murder - so, assuming the diary was the second Horcrux...Voldy's soul would have only been split in half at that point. A full quarter of his soul would have gone into the diary. At least, this is what I understood about soul-splitting/murder/Horcruxes from DD's explanation. The first time you kill someone, it tears your soul in half. So, at the making of the diary, TR still had a full half of a soul, which then split again into quarters. Subsequent Horcruxes, therefore, would have half of quarter (cup), half of an eighth (locket)...yadda yadda. Each Horcrux would have a smaller soul piece than the last one...finally leaving Voldy with the smallest soul piece of all. I am reminded of Darth Vader saying he was "more machine than man"...same idea. Voldy had very little humanity left after splitting his soul so many times. And think of all the people he killed and *didn't* make Horcruxes out of! He murdered LOTS of people...he had a very itty bitty piece of soul left. Conversely, since the diary was made just after the ring, it would have had a much larger soul piece. Does that make sense? : ) Katie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:32:55 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:32:55 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > > > > Lenore: > > In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin > > is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective viewpoint. It > > really says less about Slytherin than it does about the Gryffindor > > attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions than anything > > else. > > Prep0strus: > <<>> Every time something evil was done, it was done by members of this house. <<>> > ~Adam (Prep0strus) ***Katie: While I agreed with the rest of your post, Adam, I have to disagree here. This is the second time I have read this today (I don't know who said it the first time), and I have to say...that's wrong! What about Wormtail? Wormtail was a Gryffindor! His multiple betrayals, and his attempted murder of Sirius, and his murder by betrayal of the Potters...he is one of the biggest villians in the book and he was NOT a Slytherin. Also, if you consider betrayal an act of evil, and I think JKR does, Marietta was a Ravenclaw. Marietta betrayed the whole DA to Umbridge and she was most definitely a Ravenclaw. Umbridge - what house was she in? I can't see her as a Slytherin, somehow. She's too cutesey. I would guess she might have been in Ravenclaw. Of course, that's a guess, but JKR never states that she was in Slytherin. And Umbridge...geez...she's worse than Voldy, for me! And of course, we have a list of good Slytherins...Snape, Sirius, Regulus, Slughorn (maybe slimey, but definitely not evil), and I would argue that Draco is also not evil. Wimpy and weak, perhaps, but NOT evil. Sorry, I just had to point that stuff out. I agreed with most of your other points, however. : ) Katie From geeves_flickr at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:12:57 2007 From: geeves_flickr at yahoo.com (geeves_flickr) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:12:57 -0000 Subject: A recommendation: The Prestige In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177713 > Eggplant wrote: > > For all those suffering from Harry Potter withdrawal now that the last > book has been published I suggest you read a wonderful novel about > magic called "The Prestige" by Christopher Priest. It's absolutely > first rate! They made a movie out of the book and the movie may be > even better than the book. I'll second this recommendation! A very unique and original book that I read straight through twice and read a third time just recently. It's also very haunting and as Bart wrote, parallels several of the big themes in the last two books of the HP series. The movie and book can stand very much on their own and only have the rivalry as the common thread. How it starts, its after-effects and resolution are entirely different. It also takes place in two different time periods the early 1900s and the present (which is left out of the movie, probably for the better). geeves_flickr From lmkos at earthlink.net Thu Oct 4 20:07:59 2007 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:07:59 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177714 > > > Lenore: > > In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin > > is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective viewpoint. It > > really says less about Slytherin than it does about the Gryffindor > > attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions than anything > > else. > >Prep0strus: >But that's been my point - it's not the 'Griffindor perception'. It's >reality as it exists in the book. It is not a 'viewpoint' or a 'way >of looking at things'. IMO, it's the truth of the wizarding world, as >told by JKR. Lenore: Yep. I rest my case. >Lenore: > > Yes, that is the lie which we are expected to believe, it seems. > > It was because it is such a blatant lie that I really expected and > > hoped in the final book that it would be exposed as the lie it is. > >Prep0strus: >But it wasn't. And so it's not a lie. It's truth. It's reality. It >may not be what many of us were hoping for, but that's how it is. The >evil of Slytherin is not the responsibility of Griffindor - it is >inherent to Slytherin. It's not a ruse, and it's not sleight of hand. >I believe that JKR took the qualities she finds wrong and distasteful, >and imbued them into one particular house. Lenore: Of course. That is pretty obvious. Prepostrus: >Then she created every >character in that house to represent those ideas, to lesser or greater >extent, but never allowing herself to go so far as to create a >character within that house who can be good, and kind, and nice. They >are tragically flawed because they exist within the construct she has >created. >Every time something evil was done, it was done by members of this house. >(snip) >But there isn't. There never was. So it can't be a lie. And a lie >we are 'expected to believe'? Like JKR is pulling a giant Andy >Kaufman-esque trick on us all? No. I don't think one has to like the >world she has created, but it doesn't make it something that it's not. Lenore: The WW is a twisted world, built and based on the lie I described-- the psychological self-deception that pervades the books, imo. And as for the "giant tricks", hasn't JKR been pulling them on us through all the books from the start? Prepostrus: >Griffindors cannot be blamed for how they think of Slytherins because >they are RIGHT. Slytherins ARE bad and wrong and represent what is >wrong. They DO represent prejudice and cruelty. This is not a >statement on Griffindors and how they are prone to prejudice and >thinking - that would be a different story. Lenore: Sorry, but that *is* the substory. We see Gryffs behaving with cruelty and prejudice all through the books. They just don't take responsibility for correcting any of it. They can't, actually, because they have no real insight into it, nor awareness of what they're doing. Preposterus: >In this story, Slytherins >represent what is wrong with the world, and the Griffindors and others >who fight against that (including even the extraordinarily flawed >Slytherins who are only good by virtue of their non-Slytherin >qualities but do fight on the side of good) are in the right. They >are also flawed, but they are fighting with what JKR perceives as >wrong in the world - and that is the ideals of Slytherin, most >perfectly represented in Tom Riddle. Lenore: I just happen to think it is a very poor depiction of "what is wrong with the world". For one thing, it is simplistic and upside down. I agree with you that that is the WW as created by JKR. I have a very hard time with the idea that it reflects her truth, her reality (as you put it), and that the book she wrote reflects her actual beliefs. That is what's scariest of all, because of the phenomenon which her story has become in our world. It seems to support prejudice in all its forms. I take the position that I don't know what her beliefs are, nor why she would write a series which depicts really ugly beliefs, and then not resolve them in any satisfactory manner at all. That's why I haven't posted much on Bk 7. You say those on the "good side" are always in the right, and they are fighting what JKR perceives as being wrong in the world-- Hmm. In any case, it is a silly fight which can never be won, because it is being fought at the level which perpetuates "evil" and does nothing at all to really heal the world. Lenore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 20:09:28 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:09:28 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore - Nature of People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177715 --- "montavilla47" wrote: > > --- , "prep0strus" wrote: > > > I see where Dumbledore comes off as arrogant, and I > > get that many people want Slytherin to actually be > > an equal group that has different challenges, but > > that's not the way the Harry Potter world is. > > > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) > > > Montavilla47: > > ... > > Yes, I'm forced to admit that JKR did intend Slytherin > to represent all that is warped and evil in the world. > That the best they can hope for is to be diluted enough > in their evil to remain part of the school. But I > don't have to like it, or accept it. > > ... > > But, yes, in JKR's story, you do have a choice. You > can choose not to be evil. Just make that choice > before you're twelve. Otherwise, you're pretty much > stuck. bboyminn: The thing is, you are assigning these traits to Slytherin as a unique group, but the traits found in Slytherin are found to some degree in all of us, as are the traits of Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor. The Choice we make in life is which of these traits matter most to us and how are we going to apply them. Let me ask you to take a look at any American Middle School or High School. It is filled with sweet angelic faced kids; kids that can be impossibly cruel and mean to each other. The level of the torment they heap on each other is sometime stunning in its cruelty. Yet, do we classify them as absolutely and for all time 'evil'? Do we suggest banning them from school or life? I think not. I think the four Hogwarts House respesent aspects that are found in all of us, collectively and individually. The question is which of these universal aspects are most important to us, and which we intend to put the most effort into in our later lives. There are some Slytherin-ish people who live for the Deal. That is what makes life worth living; working the deal and making the money. The world is filled with people like this, and overall they add greatly to society. However, when the 'deal' turn to the 'con', things get dicey. Even the best businessman occasionally skirts the boundaries of ethical behavior, and if they think they can get away with it and if it enhances the Deal, then they may be willing to step across the line. But on a whole, this type of person does benefit society even if society looks down on them for it. Slytherins are not universally evil; they still have a choice, and that choice is not made for them when they are sorted into Slytherin. Once again, I remind people that we have only see SOME Slytherins; those that were important to /this/ story. Snape made one choice when he was younger, but made another choice when he was older and wiser; one for evil and one for good. In the long run, he is defined by his choices, not by his House. And, I think that is part of the message JKR wanted to send; we are who we are, but our choices define what 'who we are' means. So, I think JKR's representation of the Houses are actually representations of the whole. All those characteristics exist in each of us. Which we choose to emphasize and which serve us best, are based on a combination of general personality and choices we make. There is nothing wrong with a life spent chasing The Deal. There is nothing wrong with a life spent accumulating wealth and possessions. But to do this and succeed, you also need intelligence, courage, and loyalty; all of the House traits. I think Slytherin is merely part of the whole, and represents what can happen when ambition overrides the other House traits. Ambitious men chasing the deal are all going to be greatly tempted to skirt or even break the rules. Some will cross over and some won't. Those who don't are more likely to be people who are not ruled by their Slytherin character, but let the other House characteristics shine through when they can best serve a person. Further, I think any of the House traits has potential for evil. Reckless courage, blind loyalty, unthinking intellect, and unrestrained ambition all have equal potential for evil. And, I think the books try to illustrate this. The Slytherins we see represent the darkest part of our selves, and what we should get from the books is the inward search for the answer to this question; do we rule our Slytherin traits or do they rule us? Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 20:21:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:21:44 -0000 Subject: Disappointing DD (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177716 Montavilla47 wrote: > > I don't think of arrogance as a Slytherin trait so much as a Gryffindor trait. I may be somewhat subversive in thinking that way. Carol responds: I think arrogance is pretty well distributed among the Houses, or at least between Slytherin and Gryffindor. All of the Blacks (with the possible exception of Andromeda, whom we only see after Harry has insulted her and when she's in desperate fear for her daughter's safety) are arrogant. That includes Gryffindor Sirius. So was James Potter. I'm not sure whether "arrogance" quite describes Dumbledore's high opinion of his own intelligence, but certainly he was arrogant in his youth. And Snape, though I can't recall the adjective being applied to him in canon (as it is to Narcissa, Bellatrix, Sirius, and James) no doubt qualifies as arrogant on occasion as well. As do both Tom Riddles, one of them a mere Muggle. IIRC, we even find Zacharias Smith's presumably Hufflepuff father described as arrogant. So was Helena Ravenclaw (I'm not sure about Rowena) even though the adjective is not directly applied to her. The WW as a whole is arrogant in its treatment of Muggles, IMO. Arrogance may not be a universal wizarding trait, but it's a common one. Montavilla47 wrote: Ambition and secrecy, yes, I associate those with Slytherin. Carol responds: And yet, oddly, Albus Dumbledore had both traits in spades. The ambition he suppressed, but the secrecy was one of his defining characteristics, taught him at his mother's knee, according to Aberforth, and for which he had a natural aptitude. And DD encourages secrecy, at least, in Harry, and the very specific ambition to defeat Voldemort. Snape, of course, excels in secrecy, but he, too, has suppressed whatever ambition he once had (unless we really believe that he wanted to be DADA teacher, hardly the pinnacle of fame and wealth he could have achieved had he not ruined his life by becoming a DE). Percy and the Twins are as ambitious in their way (one wanting success, the other two money) as any Slytherin (but without the secrecy). Tom Riddle epitomizes those two traits at their worst, but he is not a typical Slytherin, being obsessed with his own immortality and using his charisma (and, later, his power) to lead others into evil. Draco, who probably will never have to earn a living, is, AFAICT, neither ambitious nor secretive. Arrogant, yes, until the reality of being a DE slaps him in the face. And I see little ambition in Crabbe or Goyle until Crabbe suddenly exhibits the ambition to be a DE (with Goyle dutifully along) in DH and only their surprising mastery of the "disslusionment charm" to indicate a penchant for secrecy. Which is not to say that JKR does not engage in stereotypes, with Crabbe and Goyle as thugs and the Slytherin Quidditch team as cheaters. The Gryffindor tactics, unfortunately, are only marginally less bad. Draco, however, starts out as a stereotype and develops into an individual, however flawed. Snape has always been a distinct individual, but with his loyalties and better feelings disguised. It's a shame that we don't get to see much of the clever loner Theo Nott, who strikes me as similar to the young Snape, who fortunately did not make the mistake of joining the DEs. I'm not sure what my point is here except to say that I think your generalizations aren't always applicable and characters in both Houses have their faults, not necessarily those typically associated with their House, and at least some Slytherins have virtues. Snape is not just courageous (more so than most Gryffindors); he works extremely hard and is loyal to DD beyond the call of duty (both Hufflepuff virtues); and is exceptionally intelligent (a Ravenclaw trait, which admittedly can't be called a virtue but is certainly highly desirable). And Regulus' sacrifice shows how greatly his brother underestimated him and suggests what he might have become had he not been seduced by Voldemort's propaganda and raised in the belief that his blood made him a superior being. Montavilla47 wrote: > > And yes, Dumbledore's aims are good. What bugs me about Dumbledore is, I suppose, his utter lack of humility and that he does talk as though he's taking responsibility when he really isn't. Carol responds: That and his underplaying of the contributions of others, especially Snape: "Had it not been--forgive me the lack of seemly modesty--for my own prodigious skill and for Professor snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale" (HBP Am. ed. 503). His own "prodigious skill"? what, putting on a cursed ring after de-Horcruxing it with the Sword of Gryffindor in the vain hope of seeing the sister whose death he was partially responsible for? Professor Snape's restoring him with a potion presumably of his own making and trapping the curse in his hand reduced to "timely action"? *Might* not have lived to tell the tale? Professor Snape gave you an extra year of life, you arrogant old ingrate, and could have done more if you'd summoned him sooner--and then to act as if your own "prodigious skill" had some part in keeping you alive! And how stupid can you be to put on the ring in the first place? the presumption of it makes me want to shake you! Why not tell Harry what you told Snape himself, that you're fortunate, very fortunate, to have him? So, yes, Montavilla, I agree with you that sometimes DD lack of humility can be annoying. Not only does he seem to take responsibility without actually doing so (for example, near the end of OoP), but he takes credit away from other people or plays down their contributions. I was aware of that (to me) annoying tendency, which really comes to the fore in HBP (when he's in too big a hurry to assume his twinkly-eyed, benevolent persona because he's dying), but I was nevertheless unprepared for the extent of his manipulativeness and, well, coldness, in DH. "King's Cross" seemed to me like a return to the "real" Dumbledore, the familiar benevolent, mostly wise mentor--more flawed than he seemed in earlier books but well-intentioned, fond of Harry, and genuinely regretting the flaw in the plan that resulted in the death of Snape. Montavilla47 wrote: > > I bought that Dumbledore had his reasons for alienating himself from Harry in OotP, but it made me very uncomfortable that he made Snape teach Harry Occlumency. Not because I think Snape was using it as an excuse to torment Harry--although if that was an issue, it should have addressed. But because I didn't see how it wasn't putting Snape into an impossible situation. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort could look out through Harry's eyes. He'd seen it. How was Snape supposed to maintain his cover in that situation? Carol responds: I'm not sure that Voldemort could always see through Harry's eyes. For example, we don't have his feeling that he's a serpent about to strike when he's in Snape's presence, only in DD's. I think that DD trusts to Snape's abilities as a superb Occlumens and actor to cover his teaching of Occlumency if LV finds out about it. What I don't like is his making it seem as if the end of the Occlumency lessons is Snape's fault for not being able to get past his dislike of James. Possibly, DD knew why Snape had put that particular memory in the Pensieve and was keeping quiet about Lily, but still, it's Harry's fault that he invaded the memory in the first place and Harry's fault for not studying. I suppose that DD doesn't want to remind Harry of his own culpability because Harry has just lost his godfather, but still, Snape gets short shrift as usual. At least DD tells him about the Fake Veritaserum and reminds him that Snape sent the Order to the MoM. Anyway, I don't see having Snape give Harry Occlumency lessons as a problem, but making him keep silent about the real reason for doing so (the Prophecy) is probably a mistake, one that DD doesn't, IIRC, take full credit for. (Plenty of blame all around, I realize. Snape's own secretiveness and unfairness have given Harry no reason to trust him. So is JKR attacking secretiveness as a personality trait in all three good guys? Harry, who eavesdrops, conceals information even from his friends, and occasionally lies, doesn't seem to learn this lesson until DH, when he finally lets the DA give him a bit of help looking for the Ravenclaw Horcrus, and even then doesn't tell them why he's looking for it.) Montavilla47 wrote: > Then at the end, he throws in the bit about Harry not getting a prefect badge. Does it really matter at this point? Who cares? But apparently Dumbledore felt the need to make sure Harry knew that he was just that much better than Ron Weasley that he would have gotten the badge if he wasn't needed for saving the world instead. Carol: I didn't like that bit, either. I thought he'd given the badge to Ron in part because Harry had other concerns and obligations but in part because Ron had potential as a leader which he just needed to develop, and being given the badge would boost his confidence and help him to rise to his potential. I also thought that he'd chosen Ron for his loyalty to Harry and because he had more nerve than the equally loyal but timid Neville. And then to shed a tear because he hadn't given it to Harry, as if Harry needs any more status (or time-consuming duties like helping to decorate for Christmas)--I think it was JKR shedding a tear for poor insufficiently honored Harry, champion Seeker, TWT champion, nemesis of Voldemort, next-year's Quidditch captain, who somehow deserves an apology for not being made Prefect, too. I liked it better when Harry was happy for his friend and thought that maybe Ron had some quality that he didn't have. The ability to come in second, maybe? But Ron likes to win as much as Harry does, even if it's vicariously, through Harry. > Montavilla47 wrote: > When Dumbledore really started grating on my nerves was in HBP. It starts with Dumbledore lecturing the Dursleys on their poor parenting skills while knocking them in the heads with glasses of mead. Okay, tip number one in making friends and influencing people: If you want someone to listen to what you are saying, try not to distract them by knocking them about the head at the same time. ,snip> Carol: Except that he wasn't trying to make friends or influence the Dursleys, just reprimand them for their ill treatment of Harry. He was also gently reprimanding him for their lack of hospitality. Possibly, he didn't know what had happened on their various other encounters with wizards--a pig's tail, a demolished living room, a four-foot-long tongue. It was meant to be humorous, but I do think that he should have reassured them that it was safe to drink the mead and if they were still afraid, he should have vanished the glasses sooner or moved them to the coffee table. He didn't grate on my nerves there, but he was certainly high-handed. The only excuse I can make for him is that he knew he was dying and that Harry's danger was increasing by the moment, but as usual, his needs and priorities took precedence over everyone else's. Montavilla47 wrote: > Then there's that bizarre remark about Merope not having Lily's courage. Okay. Again, what's the point of that comparison? It's like the prefect line. Don't be too hard on her, Harry. She wasn't Lily. Instead of: Don't be too hard on her, Harry. She was STARVING and it was the dead of winter and she was dressed in rags and she still managed to do something way harder than you will ever do in your life. > > Oh, and yeah, pregnant women with no education, skills, looks, money, or self-esteem can't really take care of themselves that well. Carol: I agree with you here completely. I would add that magic can't conjure food, a point that DD should have made in response to Harry's question about Merope's keeping herself alive through magic. But DD isn't the only character to start out with what seems like a reasonable assertion and then give very odd reasons to back it up. (Snape, of course, has to give reasons that aren't his real reasons to get the DEs to stop Crucioing Harry and get out of Hogwarts or convince Bellatrix that he's loyal to LV, but that's different. DD isn't folling anyone here. Did he use the Lily line specifically to appeal to Harry?) It reminds me of Hermione arguing against Harry's use of Sectumsempra because it landed him in detention and kept him from playing Quidditch (a reason jumped on as weak by Ginny, who *approves* of his use of the spell). What about the *valid* reasons for not using an unknown spell? What about the fact that it nearly killed a classmate? So it's not just Dumbledore who gives really odd reasons to support his arguments. Maybe it's JKR? Or maybe we're supposed to see the flaws in the arguments and mentally shake the characters for their moral obtuseness? > Montavilla47 wrote: > On the other hand, while I don't necessarily agree with allowing the needs of Draco Malfoy to supercede Kate Bell or Ron Weasley, it really warmed my heart to see Dumbledore reach out to save Draco. Because it seemed that if Dumbledore cared enough to save Draco, then he truly must care for all his students--not just the remarkable Mr. Potter. > > That was mitigated in DH, when Dumbledore says he prefers that Draco not tear his soul on "my" death. As if it would okay with Dumbledore if Draco tears it on someone else's. But I might be too picky there. Carol responds: I do think you're being too picky. He doesn't want Draco to murder or be murdered, and he does get Snape to talk to Draco (which results in his no longer resorting to dangerous stunts like the necklace. it's too late to stop the poisoned mead, but he does at least confine his efforts to the Vanishing Cabinet after that). And he puts every conceivable protection on the castle, checking for Dark artifacts, anti-flying charms, etc. It's impossible to know that Draco is working on the Vanishing Cabinet and actually has a way to get DEs into the castle, but DD has the teachers and Order members standing by just in case, and Snape as his ace in the hole. And he provides Snape with humanitarian reasons (Draco's welfare, DD's own wish to die with as much dignity and as little pain as possible at the time of his own choosing) for killing him when the time comes. He doesn't tell him about the wand, but that's secretive DD again. And when the time actually comes, he has the additional reason of not wanting Snape to die from the UV to beg Snape to kill him even though the wand plan has gone out the window. He needs Snape to carry out the rest of the plan, including protecting the students without their knowing it (which would entail his using his considerable talents to persuade LV and the soon-to-be corrupted Ministry to make him headmaster). Sorry--off on a tangent again. I do think that saving Draco's soul (and life) is among DD's considerations in having Snape kill him, but it's only one among many, and one that he knows will help persuade to do a deed he really does not want to do. Montavilla47 wrote: > I could forgive him setting Snape up for murder, except... he also charged Snape with telling Harry about the sacrifice. How was Snape supposed to do that after being killed for the Elder Wand? Carol: He certainly set Snape up to "murder" him, but I don't think he set him up to *be* murdered. Obviously, as you say, he needed Snape to tell Harry about the soul bit in his scar and the need to sacrifice himself, which Snape couldn't do if he were dead (and that he could do it while he was dying in such a desperately dramatic way, or that he would be killed by Nagini rather than an AK, which would have made the revelation impossible, not even DD could anticipate). I take "poor Severus" and "that bit didn't work out" at face value. Somehow, Snape was supposed to get custody of the Elder Wand, which, in any case, would have lost its powers. whether it would be just another wand or a "poor stick" with no powers at all is unclear, but evidently, his having it would have kept it out of Voldemort's hands (and prevented it from being found in DD's tomb). Dumbledore knew or, rather, suspected that Voldemort would eventually go after the Elder Wand, especially, no doubt, after he kidnapped Ollivander, but looking for the wand and finding it are two different things. Dumbledore could not have anticipated Harry's wand going off on its own to attack Voldemort and destroy the wand he had borrowed from Lucius Malfoy, which sped up the process by revealing to Voldemort that just any wand would not work against Harry's holly and phoenix feather wand, which knew him as an enemy. Nor would Voldemort, even having kidnapped and tortured Ollivander to discover the existence of the Elder Wand, have necessarily known how to find it. Once he found Gregorovitch, Legilimensed him to discover the theft, and killed him (needlessly), he was stymied. DD had kept his possession of the wand secret, and had it not been for Rita Skeeter's biography and the photo of the young Grindelwald that Harry tried to take and dropped when Bathilda!Nagini attacked him, LV could still have been fruitlessly trying to determine the identity of the thief when Harry's Horcrux hunt was revealed to Voldemort. So LV could have placed Nagini in her bubble without even having the Elder Wand in his possession, or without figuring out that it didn't work properly for him (despite creating Nagini's bubble and killing all those people) because he wasn't its master. That he happened to arrive at the (false) conclusion that Snape was its true master just after he had found out about the Horcruxes and placed Nagini in her bubble was an unfortunate coincidence and no part of DD's plan. (If Snape had had the wand, using his Occlumency to hide that fact from LV, he wouldn't have been killed at all. Or, at least, that seems to be DD's original plan.) You could forgive DD for setting Snape up to be murdered if the plan had made sense? Not I! Fortunately, the original plan can't have involved Snape's death because he had to be alive to carry it out. Carol, who thinks that not even the manipulative DD would sacrifice his most loyal and useful follower for a plan that had already gone awry with the Expelliarmus on the tower From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 4 19:19:23 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:19:23 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177717 > > allies wrote: > > > Why, then, did the rebounding curse rip Voldemort out of his body > > when he attacked Harry in Godric's Hollow, but merely knock him > > out for a few minutes in the forest? > zanooda wrote: > > But I still don't understand what happened to LV in this case. If > he wasn't hit by the rebounding curse, why was he knocked out? Why > did he also had a near-death experience? **************************************** Angie's response: I believe this is more complicated. Harry chose to go to his death. Voldemort was using the Elder wand, which by rights should have been Harry's via Draco. Harry was a horcrux. So here is my theory. When Harry chose to go to his death to end it all and Voldemort used the AK curse the Elder wand recognised its true master and did not send a full powered curse at Harry refusing to kill its true master. The wand also does not work properly when Voldemort hits Harry's body with Cruiatus Curse after he regains himself further refusing to do real harm to its true master. When the AK hits Harry it knocks out both Harry and Voldemort because Harry is a horcrux. By attempting to destroy Harry, Voldemort was also destroying a major, but unknown, part of himself which, in conjunction with the mutual blood sharing he and Harry have, caused his collapse. The two are basically one, one feels whatever the other does. So when Harry died so did Voldemort, until the horcrux part in Harry is killed by Harry's selfless act. Voldemort can not have an after life experience because there is not enough of his soul left to experience such great things. The "ugly thing" under the seat, in the libo land Harry is in after collapsing, is the horcrux part of Voldemort's soul. Because of the proximity of Voldemort I believe he "felt" and briefly experienced the death of his "Harry" soul. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 20:46:33 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:46:33 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore - Nature of People In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Montavilla47: > > Yes, I'm forced to admit that JKR did intend Slytherin > > to represent all that is warped and evil in the world. > > That the best they can hope for is to be diluted enough > > in their evil to remain part of the school. But I > > don't have to like it, or accept it. > > > > ... > > > > But, yes, in JKR's story, you do have a choice. You > > can choose not to be evil. Just make that choice > > before you're twelve. Otherwise, you're pretty much > > stuck. > > > bboyminn: > > The thing is, you are assigning these traits to > Slytherin as a unique group, but the traits found in > Slytherin are found to some degree in all of us, as > are the traits of Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor. Montavilla47: Pardon me, but I don't think I was the one assigning traits to Slytherin. At most, I'm repeating the assignments made by the Hat and agreeing that, in Potterverse, these traits appear to be negative, unpleasant, and halfway to "evil." > bboyminn: > There are some Slytherin-ish people who live for the > Deal. That is what makes life worth living; working > the deal and making the money. The world is filled > with people like this, and overall they add greatly > to society. However, when the 'deal' turn to the > 'con', things get dicey. Even the best businessman > occasionally skirts the boundaries of ethical > behavior, and if they think they can get away with > it and if it enhances the Deal, then they may be > willing to step across the line. But on a whole, this > type of person does benefit society even if society > looks down on them for it. Montavilla47: You don't have to convince me that ambition can be a virtue. I agree with you that ambitious people make things happen, and that often benefits everyone. > bboyminn: > Slytherins are not universally evil; they still have > a choice, and that choice is not made for them when > they are sorted into Slytherin. Once again, I remind > people that we have only see SOME Slytherins; those > that were important to /this/ story. Snape made one > choice when he was younger, but made another choice > when he was older and wiser; one for evil and one > for good. In the long run, he is defined by his choices, > not by his House. And, I think that is part of the > message JKR wanted to send; we are who we are, but our > choices define what 'who we are' means. Montavilla47: But we can't extrapolate any message from these phantom Slytherins. Like the Crumpled-Horn Snorkack, the Good Slytherin turned out to be a myth. > bboyminn: --- > I think Slytherin is merely part of the whole, and > represents what can happen when ambition overrides > the other House traits. Ambitious men chasing the > deal are all going to be greatly tempted to skirt > or even break the rules. Some will cross over and > some won't. Those who don't are more likely to be > people who are not ruled by their Slytherin character, > but let the other House characteristics shine through > when they can best serve a person. > > Further, I think any of the House traits has > potential for evil. Reckless courage, blind loyalty, > unthinking intellect, and unrestrained ambition all > have equal potential for evil. And, I think the > books try to illustrate this. > > The Slytherins we see represent the darkest part of > our selves, and what we should get from the books is > the inward search for the answer to this question; > do we rule our Slytherin traits or do they rule us? > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > Montavilla47: If this were the case, then I think we'd see something similar in all the Houses. That is, an excess of Gryffindor courage--which I think comes through in the bullying behavior of James and Sirius--would be acknowledged as just as dangerous as unchecked ambition. I really can't tell if we are or we aren't. I can draw the line between James and Sirius's arrogance and their betrayal by Peter, and Snape's alignment with the Death Eaters. But if I try to do that out loud, I get vehement protests about how I'm blaming the victims. If JKR did all this as a trick to make us all argue and think about prejudice long after we finish the books, then it's working brilliantly. I honestly can't figure out if she did that or not. But if I go by the way the story plays out, (and her interviews) then I'm stuck concluding, reluctantly, grudgingly, that the Slytherins are meant to be seen as morally inferior to everyone else at Hogwarts. And the "good" Slytherins are those who are good despite their House affiliation and never because of it. Montavilla47 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 21:03:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:03:28 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177719 > > Prep0strus: > But it wasn't. And so it's not a lie. It's truth. It's reality. It > may not be what many of us were hoping for, but that's how it is. The > evil of Slytherin is not the responsibility of Griffindor - it is > inherent to Slytherin. It's not a ruse, and it's not sleight of hand. lizzyben: It is a lie in what it tells us about human nature. Writers have one fundamental responsibility, and that is to tell us what it means to be human. JKR's story lies about humanity, lies about good & evil, & lies about herself. Adam: > I believe that JKR took the qualities she finds wrong and distasteful, > and imbued them into one particular house. Then she created every > character in that house to represent those ideas, to lesser or greater > extent, but never allowing herself to go so far as to create a > character within that house who can be good, and kind, and nice. They > are tragically flawed because they exist within the construct she has > created. lizzyben: I agree here, but w/one caveat. In doing this, JKR inevitably took qualities she finds wrong or distasteful in *herself*, and projected it onto this House of Bad. Slytherin becomes her shadow & scapegoat. And this is inevitable, because it's what we all do. If I had to create a house of "bad guys", I'd probably assign it traits that I find unacceptable in myself - because those traits would be most irrationally irritating to me. That's projection. Adam: > Every time something evil was done, it was done by members of this house. lizzyben: Evil is done by other houses, but it is ignored or overlooked because they are assigned "good." Adam: > I think a lot of people thought that by the end we would learn that in > reality, there are good and evil Slytherins, mean and nice Slytherins. > That that is true of all the other houses as well. That there was > more to being a Slytherin than selfish ambition and pureblooded bigotry. > But there isn't. There never was. So it can't be a lie. And a lie > we are 'expected to believe'? Like JKR is pulling a giant Andy > Kaufman-esque trick on us all? No. I don't think one has to like the > world she has created, but it doesn't make it something that it's not. lizzyben: It is a lie, because it seems to say that Slytherins aren't really human; or as you put it "they aren't real people." Sure, these children go to school & cry & laugh & have parents who love them, but they aren't human the way you or I are. They're just this sub- human mutation that contains all the bad traits of humanity & none of the good. But that doesn't describe real human beings at ALL. ALL of us are a mixture of good & bad, all are flawed, none are "superior". Adam: > Griffindors cannot be blamed for how they think of Slytherins because > they are RIGHT. Slytherins ARE bad and wrong and represent what is > wrong. They DO represent prejudice and cruelty. This is not a > statement on Griffindors and how they are prone to prejudice and > thinking - that would be a different story. In this story, Slytherins > represent what is wrong with the world, and the Griffindors and others > who fight against that (including even the extraordinarily flawed > Slytherins who are only good by virtue of their non-Slytherin > qualities but do fight on the side of good) are in the right. They > are also flawed, but they are fighting with what JKR perceives as > wrong in the world - and that is the ideals of Slytherin, most > perfectly represented in Tom Riddle. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) lizzyben: And that's a lie, too. This is a society where only Slytherins are ever portrayed as bigots. NO one from the other Houses uses "mudblood" slurs or has any prejudice at all. Yet, suddenly, the Ministry falls & the whole WW begins persecuting muggle-borns. That tells us nothing about how bigotry actually works in society. It's like saying, "Oh, all the math majors are racist, but NEVER the music majors". Yale students are racist, NEVER Harvard. Southerners are bigots, NEVER Northerners. Ridiculous. It's more about hating the assigned group of "bigots" than actually adressing the issue of bigotry in society. In real life, bigotry runs throughout society, finding expression in different forms. But here, only Slyths are ever bigoted, no one else? The way the entire WW seems to view Muggles as inferior or people to be persecuted/rescued is actually a much better example of systemic bigotry, but that is of course left unaddressed as the trait of bigotry is swept into the house of bad. That's classic scapegoating. The word "scapegoat" comes from a ritual of the ancient Israelites - they would take a goat, symbolically pour all of their sins into it, and then cast it off into the desert, purifying their society of sin. And human scapegoats work the same way - the society projects their own sins onto them, then casts them out. And that's what happens with this false dichotomy of the "good noble Gryfs" and their inverted mirror of "evil awful" Slyths. Real people have both nobility & awfulness within them - but in this story, all the nobility is kept to the Gryfs, while all the bad traits are cast off onto the Slytherins. It's like splitting off a piece of yourself & calling it "other". So within the lie, the book is saying something very true about human nature & our eternal search for a outside scapegoat for our sins. I don't believe in a supernatural evil, or that evil is something that only some other horrible people are capable of. I think the capacity for evil is within every human heart, just as good is. But in this world, it seems like readers can instead simply divide people into the "superior good group" & the "inferior evil" group. And to the extent that the books seem to suggest that one group of people (Slytherins) actually *are* inferior, bad, subhuman, or deserving of contempt & disrespect, I believe that message is evil. Not that the books are, or that JKR is, but that they do seem to channel & express that recurring impulse in human nature. Sorry to keep beating this particular drum. The respected Zimbardo actually wrote a book on the reasons why people do evil things, titled the "Lucifer Effect". And in this book, he pinpointed one major factor that makes good people do evil things - dehumanization. His site devotes an entire page to the concept: "At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non-comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives. Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a "cortical cataract" that clouds one's thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation. ... It is all done with words and images. To modify an old adage: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names can sometimes kill you. The process begins with stereotyped conceptions of the other, dehumanized perceptions of the other, the other as worthless, the other as all-powerful, the other as demonic, the other as an abstract monster, the other as a fundamental threat to our cherished values and beliefs. With public fear notched up and enemy threat imminent, reasonable people act irrationally, independent people act in mindless conformity, and peaceful people act as warriors. Dramatic visual images of the enemy on posters, television, magazine covers, movies, and the internet imprint on the recesses of the limbic system, the primitive brain, with the powerful emotions of fear and hate." http://lucifereffect.com/links_dehuman.htm When the novels say that people are basically born good & evil, that we can segregate out the evil children & justifiably view them w/contempt & hate, that is a lie. When it seems to support dehumanizing an entire group of people, that's an evil message. But there is a truth within the lie, in that the books show the deep impulses towards dehumanization, scapegoating & projection in human nature. And to that extent, it does tell us something about what it means to be human. lizzyben From stephab67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 19:38:43 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:38:43 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177720 This is my first post here. I'm happy to have found this group, as the forums on the Harry Potter sites are too juvenile for me. Now, for my $0.02: > > Montavilla47: > > But, yes, in JKR's story, you do have a choice. You > > can choose not to be evil. Just make that choice > > before you're twelve. Otherwise, you're pretty much > > stuck. stephab67: I think this mainly comes from JKR's experience in the British school system, where you take a test at 11 years old which determines what kind of school/education you will receive all the way through college. Talk about high-stakes testing! > Betsy Hp: > Hmm... I wouldn't say Dumbledore is *more* villainous than the > Slytherins. They're equated with Nazis after all and it's kind of > hard to sink lower than that kind of bad. It's just, IMO, > Dumbledore is a really crappy good guy. As has been pointed out, > he's very careless with other people's lives. And if it serves > him to let you twist in the wind, in the wind you will twist. stephab67: Someone else cited the Katie Bell and Ron poisonings earlier. These are both good examples of letting people twist in the wind. Knowing that Draco had been trying to kill him, and these two were unintended victims, how could he have possibly justified his actions if either Katie or Ron, or both, had died? Would he have just said, "at least it wasn't Harry, and the Weasleys have six other kids so I'm sure they'll get over it?" How does DD think Harry would have reacted if Ron had died, which he would have had he not shoved the bezoar down Ron's throat? Harry would probably have hated DD after that, I'd think. > Betsy HP: > I think, for me, because there's no self-examination on the part > of the good guys, they kind of fail to interest me as characters. > Or go right over into creeping me out. Not because their behavior > is *worse* than the bad guys, but because I'm supposed to be > rooting for these people. stephab67: Of all the main characters, Ron is the only one who seems to engage in any self-examination. In DH, he not only expresses extreme remorse for having walked out on Harry, he also doesn't make any excuses for his less-than-stellar behavior. Neither Harry nor Hermione take any responsibility for the blow-up in the tent before Ron took off, even though they did have a small part in his leaving. > Betsy Hp again: > And I think the interest in seeing Dumbledore or Hermione as > villains is because it'd be wonderful to see them actually > *challenged*. Forced to walk the talk they've been spouting for so > long. Which would, in turn, make them more interesting as they > actually struggled with things, rather than sort of sailed through > comfortable in their white hats. Heh. In other words, I'd kind of > like an entirely different book. stephab67: Evil Hermione would be Bellatrix! Now about DD: When I first read the series (books 1-5) I didn't really pick up on the clues that DD wasn't exactly this paragon of goodness that Harry thought he was. This is mostly due to the fact that I read them over the course of a few years, and didn't go back to read the previous book when a new one came out. Before DH came out I re-read all of them except Chamber of Secrets, which I just scanned. It struck me that there were several clues that there was more to DD than what Harry was seeing, and I should have spotted them the first time. I really started noticing in OOtP, when DD refused to allow Harry to know anything about what was happening while he was at Privet Drive, and then when he didn't even talk to him after Harry's hearing at the MoM. Two DD actions in that book that really angered me was when he admitted to Harry that he left him basically a sitting duck in Privet Drive because he cared too much about him, and when he told Harry that he only made Ron a prefect because he thought Harry had too much on his plate already. What??!! Why would he think that Harry would make a good prefect? Do you really want the guy who has been the ringleader for breaking all kinds of rules at Hogwarts to be the rules enforcer? That would have made about as much sense as DD appointing Fred or George prefects. And does DD really think that little of Ron that he was only the second choice? "You really are the best, Harry, just what you were thinking back at 12 Grimmauld Place when you were really jealous of Ron because he got to be prefect and not you." Blech! I've got other thoughts about DD but they'll have to wait until later. Must go back to work! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 21:35:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:53 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177721 > Betsy Hp: > Interestingly enough, I agree. What I loved about, what intrigued me about, both Snape and Draco was their promise. And as of DH, IMO, neither promise was realized. Snape was reduced to (or turned out to be, since the Snape I imagined wasn't the canon Snape at all, unfortunately) a rather pathetic little man, blindly following the instructions of a portait, while obsessing over a dead woman. (OMG! Snape is Kreature!!) Carol responds: "Blindly following the instructions of a portrait"? Funnily enough, the last thing we see him do is to tell that portrait not to worry, that *he* has a plan. So the whole doe Patronus/Sword in the well plan is Snape's. And he *chose* to continue to risk his life to protect the students, help Harry, and defeat Voldemort. He could have chosen to flee (at which, being Snape, he'd have been more successful than Karkaroff) or to join Voldemort, or to refuse to kill DD. But even after he learned that they'd been protecting Harry only so that Harry could be "killed" by Voldemort and the soul bit destroyed, he continues to *choose* to fight against Voldemort without recognition or thanks, to lie and spy and face peril because not to do so would be cowardly. Snape is not Kreacher (who, in turn, is not the pathetic caricature we thought him) but an important character without whom there would not be a story. Had he not asked (not begged) Voldemort to save Lily, probably wording the request as a reward for his services (he could harly let LV know that he loved any woman, much less a "Mudblood"), Lily would not have had the choice to live which activated the ancient magic without which Harry would be dead and Voldemort would not have created his own enemy. Had he not revealed the Prophecy, he would not have felt the remorse that caused him to turn to Dumbledore and risk his life as a spy. Granted, it's "only" the love of Lily that causes him to do so (Harry is nothing to him and James is his enemy), but we don't see any other DE risking his life or changing his loyalties. And love for JKR is the most powerful and admirable of motives (witness the effects of Lily's and Harry's self-sacrifices--though, of course, Harry only thinks he's going to die). Love and remorse together prompt him to protect a boy he doesn't even like and regards (not without reason as a mediocre wizard and a rule-breaker). After years of helping and protecting Harry and risking his life lying and spying for DD, he does what only he can do--kills DD at DD's own request, saving Draco's life and soul into the bargain. In DH, besides protecting the students as headmaster (imagine what would have happened with a loyal DE in his place), he sends help (the doe Patronus and the Sword of Gryffindor) that enables Ron to save Harry, retrieve the Sword of Gryffindor, and destroy the locket Horcrux. At the end of his life, he gives Harry the message without which LV cantot be defeated. His role is so important that the book is inconceivable without it. In between the crucial beginning of the Harry/LV cycle (which he begins with an evil act that he repents for the rest of his life) and the final act that perhaps redeems him in his own eyes even though he has long since atoned for his sins, he does whatever he can to fight LV, protect Harry, and still fulfill his duties at Hogwarts. In GoF, he has the choice of fleeing like Karkaroff when LV is about to return but chooses to remain because, unlike Karkaroff, he's not a coward. He persuades LV through half-truths and Occlumency that he remains loyal and then does what only he can do, providing LV with what seems like important information while withholding the essentials. In DH, chapter one, we see him standing calmly as LV looks into his eyes, searching for the lie he's concealing and failing to find it--and we learn exactly what that entails when we see LV actually entering the mind of Gregorovitch as if it were a Pensieve. Snape, and probably only Snape, can withstand that invasion unscathed and undetected. In HBP, we saw him saving Draco and learned of his also saving Katie Bell and Dumbledore himself (feats underplayed by DD but without which those characters would be dead). We learn in the Pensieve memories in DH that Snape was right about James being an "arrogant toerag," that "Snivellus" was an unearned nickname, that Snape's remorse for his role in Lily's death was deep and anguished. While he at first protected Harry for Lily's sake, he also acted (perhaps unknown to himself) on other convictions and concerns, reproaching DD for putting on a cursed ring and showing shock that he would train Harry as a "pig to the slaughter." We learn that Snape has watched many people die but "lately, only those whom I could not save," a remark made before he saves Katie Bell or Draco, indicating that he has saved other unnamed people, not on DD's orders, not to protect Harry, not for Lily, but only because he himself wants to save them. His last act may not seem like a heroic feat to you, but it gives Harry the knowledge he needs to defeat Voldemort and at the same time to understand and appreciate what Snape has done. You seem to want to ignore the Snape who has gone before, the one who helped to defeat Barty Jr. and left to return to Voldemort on DD's orders and sent the Order to the MoM and lied to Bellatrix about his loyalty to LV and put his life on the line for Draco by taking the UV and saved three people in HBP through his healing skills combined with his knowledge of the Dark Arts and invented all those spells and Potions hints as a mere teenager and got the DEs out of Hogwarts and gave Harry a last-second lesson even as Harry was calling him a murderer and coward, as if "the Prince's Tale" somehow negates that Snape rather than supplementing and partially explaining him. But we can't ignore him. That Snape still exists, and he is not the product of your imagination. He's right there on the page. In DH, Snape is necessarily off-page most of the time, with occasional red herrings to make us think that he's loyal to Voldemort and clues (such as the doe Patronus and the detention with Hagrid) to indicate that he's really still a good guy--I'd say DDM, but you'd read that as a weakness). We see him quietly trying to talk McGonagall into letting him see Harry and brilliantly fending off her murderous attack when she defies him. (Whom should we prefer, McG, who approves Harry's Crucio and uses an Imperius Curse without urgent need, not to mention throwing conjured daggers at Snape, or Snape, who uses a Shield Charm, tosses back the suit of armor at them to protect himself, and finally flees rather than futilely fighting five people and possibly hurting someone?) To see Snape clearly and see him whole, we must look at the whole picture, from his first searching look at Harry in SS/PS, which Harry mistakenly thinks causes his scar to hurt, to the Albus Severus segment of the epilogue. It has taken Harry seven books to understand, appreciate, and honor Snape. And he does so because of the very revelations that you seem to think make him less than you thought he was. "Probably the bravest man I ever knew" is the highest compliment that Gryffindor Harry and would-be Gryffindor JKR can give. It does not denigrate his other contributions or the revelations of HBP. It's just the part that's important to Harry. Carol, who agrees that Kreacher's story somewhat parallels Snape's, but only because Harry learns to see them both without the blinders imposed by his preconceptions From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 4 21:44:09 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:44:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore - Nature of People In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47055EA9.6090201@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177722 Steve wrote: > > Further, I think any of the House traits has > potential for evil. Reckless courage, blind loyalty, > unthinking intellect, and unrestrained ambition all > have equal potential for evil. And, I think the > books try to illustrate this. > > The Slytherins we see represent the darkest part of > our selves, and what we should get from the books is > the inward search for the answer to this question; > do we rule our Slytherin traits or do they rule us? > The book that should have been invites that sort of introspection. But the book that actually happened requires nothing of the sort. Why would a child (or teenager, or adult) try to examine his conscience? It's other people that do evil things, and they are easily distinguishable. We, the good ones, the ones that identify with Gryffindor, will never be touched by evil. Even JKR's greatest sin, treason, is actually not such a sin if you are a Gryffindor. Hagrid betrayed the Order in book 1, and no one batted a lid. In book 7, when Harry wonders whether Hagrid betrayed the Order again in another fit of drunken behaviour, he actually forgives him in his mind *before* they learn it's Mundungus. The only thing JKR tries to take to the bad direction, other than ambition, is the unthinking intellect. She is very suspicious of excessive intellect, LOL. Ravenclaw is the second worst house, and Hermione's saving grace is that she has denounced intellect in book 1. Irene From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 22:08:36 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:08:36 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > I read it all pretty simply and know there's a gap in my > logic somewhere but I'm not sure where: The AK killed the soul > piece, almost killed Harry in the process, that caused the blood > protection to kick in, and the blood connection is why Voldemort went > with Harry to his near-death experience. I understood that the AK > didn't rebound because it 'found' part of LV inside Harry to hit > instead. zanooda: I don't know why I didn't think about the blood connection as a reason for LV to be knocked out, it seems logical enough, thanks! I mostly agree with your ideas, except for one thing. You say that AK hit the soul-bit instead of Harry, but I always thought that AK *had* to hit and kill Harry, otherwise the soul-bit won't be destroyed. To eliminate a soul-bit inside a Horcrux, you need to destroy the Horcrux (the container), that's what DD's book on H-xes states. Harry is the container, so he needs to die (be destroyed), then the soul-bit will be destroyed also. That's what I always believed, so your remark about the AK killing the soul-bit directly was unexpected for me. I thought it over and came to the conclusion that you may be right, because it's possible that everything is different with Harry. He is technically not a Horcrux, even if he serves as a host for the soul- bit. There was no spell cast to bind the soul-bit to him, so maybe there was no need for Harry to die in order to destroy the soul-bit inside him. I admit that your point of view is quite valid, but I still like mine better ... :-). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 22:12:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:12:29 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts - Summoning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177724 bboyminn: > > True, Harry summoned Kreacher to 12 Grimmauld Place to ask him about the locket, but I don't recall Harry every rescinding his order for Kreacher to work at Hogwarts. So, without clear instructions to the contrary, Kreacher was probably free to move between the School and the Black house. > > I suspect, that Kreacher got wind of the impending Battle of Hogwarts, or perhaps sensed that Harry was in danger, and went to the school. > Carol responds: My guess is that when Harry and his friends didn't return, Yaxley appeared in their place as Harry predicted, perhaps with other DEs in tow. The DEs would probably try to torture Kreacher to get information out of him, but fortunately for him, house-elves can Apparate without a wand. Kreacher probably escaped to the only safe place he knew of, Hogwarts, where he had previously been assigned to work (but did as little as possible). It would not be safe to return to 12 GP since the DEs might take it over, and there would be no point in staying there without Master Harry, so he would begin working at Hogwarts as Harry had wanted in the first place. (For all we know, he became friends with Dobby, who must have been astonished to see him wearing a clean tea towel. :-) ) > bboyminn: > > As to why Harry didn't summon Kreacher to the Malfoy House, I think he just plain didn't think of it. Carol: Well, that's certainly true, or the narrator would have told us otherwise! Seriously, though, who would have thought that a little house-elf could rescue six wizards and a goblin from Bellatrix, the Malfoys, and Fenrir Greyback (Wormtail having conveniently been strangled by his cursed hand)? It would simply have brought Kreacher into terrible danger (and the Black sisters would have regarded him as a traitor, just as they did Dobby). I'm not surprised that it didn't occur to Harry. I wouldn't have thought of it, either, in his place. Carol, wondering why goblins can't Apparate without a wand if house-elves can From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 4 22:33:53 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:33:53 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ANGIE" wrote: > I believe this is more complicated. > Harry chose to go to his death. Voldemort was using the Elder wand, > which by rights should have been Harry's via Draco. Harry was a > horcrux. > So here is my theory. > When Harry chose to go to his death to end it all and Voldemort used > the AK curse the Elder wand recognised its true master and did not > send a full powered curse at Harry refusing to kill its true master. > zanooda: I very much agree that many things must be considered here, but I'm kind of reluctant to include the Elder wand into this. When the wand recognized Harry during the last confrontation, it threw LV's curse back at him, that's how it protected it's master. Everything was different in the forest, and I think the AK really hit Harry that time, it did not rebound. And I'm not sure that some "half- power" AK exists, you know? You may be right, but I stll have my doubts :-). I agree with the rest of your post though. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 00:15:40 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:15:40 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177726 > Lenore: > In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin > is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective > viewpoint. It really says less about Slytherin than it does about > the Gryffindor attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions > than anything else. > That is a view which makes it awfully convenient for the other > three-fourths of humanity! The Gryffindors are, in a word, > enablers who make sure that the Slytherins stay in their place and > continue to carry out their role as scapegoats-- as Objects upon > which evil is projected, in order that the three-fourths can carry > on their lives in the comfort of a delusional "goodness". Jen: The idea of Slytherins being scapegoated when they are practicing or attempting to practice ethnic cleansing is very hard for me to see as a coherent line in the story. From the beginning Salazar Slytherin hand-picked students with a certain genetic trait - all magical families - for his house. Slytherin house was founded in part on the false belief that genetics could confer superiority. Families who believed like Slytherin continued this tradition. The Gaunts and Blacks were two such families, one choosing to inbreed in order to remain pure-blood and therefore superior in their minds, and the Blacks, choosing to say others who 'diseased' the family bloodline didn't exist anymore and weren't part of the family. These families identified heavily with Salazar Slytherin and/or Slytherin house, and when Dumbledore became headmaster, he was viewed as a particular enemy because he was seen as a champion for rights of those with impure blood. So Salazar Slytherin and those who thought like him were the ones who not only held onto the beliefs about blood, but used money and influence to get laws passed (Black family), and to bribe those who were sympathetic to the pureblood agenda (Lucius with Fudge). They found sympathizers to work with to carry out their agenda. Families also appeared to believe furthering their agenda could only be accomplished if the families stayed affiliated with Slytherin house (Malfoys, Blacks) or removing themselves entirely from the filthy Mudbloods of the WW (Gaunts). These strategies worked well enough so that when Riddle/Voldemort appeared on the scene, there were enough purebloodist families and sympathizers left to rally around him as the one who lead pure-blood wizards back to their rightful place of superiority, ruling over the rest of the WW who were inferior by their genetics or inter-marriage. This explanation is why I balk at the idea that other groups in the WW are somehow responsible for what happened to Slytherin house. Riddle/Voldemort destabilized what appeared to be a more stable situation among the houses. And Harry, when he arrived on the scene, was another destabilizer because of his unique history. But at the core of the problem in the story is is a false belief that was passed down to each generation saying pure blood = superiority. It wasn't something anyone *did* to Slytherin house to continue the tradition there. It appealed to me that in the end HP showed that the idea is a lose- lose situation: Those who strive to claim superiority based on genetics, and make attempts at ethnic cleansing, may very well find it rebounds back on them. Rallying around Voldemort was the downfall of genetic purebloodism because he helped destroy many of the last purebloodist families within the WW (of those presented) and Salazar Slytherin's line. The belief may live on in the likes of an Umbridge, but it will be much harder for her to claim such a line of ancestry anymore, nor does it appear she can benefit by doing so in the different WW that exists at the end of DH. One last thing, numbers alone don't translate to power and influence. Lucius was able to oust Dumbledore by threatening the school governors; the MOM was able to strip him of his headship in OOTP. Where in the story was that sort of thing happening in the reverse? Lucius retained his power throughout the time from his first stint as a DE until the failed mission in OOTP. At that point he was stripped of power by LV, not someone ganging up on him. Dumbledore didn't kick out the children of known DEs after LV returned or expel Draco when he knew what Draco was doing in HBP. To me, scapegoating is when an group is stripped of rights and power and forced to suffer for perceived badness. Slytherin students actually gained power when Umbridge took over and LV was back, first as the Inquisatorial Squad and finally when LV took over the school. It's hard for me to see the rivalry between Harry, Draco and each other's friends as the entire school turning on Slytherin house. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 01:11:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:11:24 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177727 > > Lenore: > > In the Gryffindor perception, they ARE white/good and Slytherin > > is black/evil. It is a very simplistic and unreflective > > viewpoint. It really says less about Slytherin than it does about > > the Gryffindor attitude, which is more about unexamined assumptions > > than anything else. > > > That is a view which makes it awfully convenient for the other > > three-fourths of humanity! The Gryffindors are, in a word, > > enablers who make sure that the Slytherins stay in their place and > > continue to carry out their role as scapegoats-- as Objects upon > > which evil is projected, in order that the three-fourths can carry > > on their lives in the comfort of a delusional "goodness". > > Jen: > This explanation is why I balk at the idea that other groups in the > WW are somehow responsible for what happened to Slytherin house. > Riddle/Voldemort destabilized what appeared to be a more stable > situation among the houses. And Harry, when he arrived on the scene, > was another destabilizer because of his unique history. But at the > core of the problem in the story is is a false belief that was passed > down to each generation saying pure blood = superiority. It wasn't > something anyone *did* to Slytherin house to continue the tradition > there. Magpie: I think the misunderstanding here is that it's kind of slippery, sometimes being meta and outside the text, but reflecting inside the text as well. Gryffindors aren't responsible for what happens to Slytherins, it's that the whole world is set up with a quarter of the population as scapegoats by the author. Within the universe it's just a fact that Slytherins are really just as awful as everyone thinks. Where the actual characters are scapegoating is not that they're driving anyone out, it's that they never look at themselves, never see any connection between the stuff done by the Slytherins and anything in themselves. Looking from outside the text, this is about the author just taking everything really bad and characterizing the Slytherins that way, while the other houses are clearly different. Within the text, it's not that the good guys are being mean to Slytherin, it's that they've got this weird scapegoat class--and within the reality of this universe, the scapegoating actually works (supposedly) and is true. The Slytherins are different from they are, they (Slytherin) are the ones who are bigoted. You attack bigotry by attacking the bigots (those other people, not us), not by looking at the bigotry within yourself. It's a total disconnect, and for many of us looks like projection. I don't know how to communicate this idea well, because it came up after DH and it seemed like either you thought the book was blatantly doing this, or else the whole concept was gibberish because the Slytherins are the Nazis. I'm sure there's probably been stuff written that explains it better that I can. I guess the problem is "the lie" that Lizzyben mentioned. Adam pointed out that "the lie" is not a lie, because Slytherin really is bad. There was no turnaround where we learned that Slytherins only seemed bad through the lense of our heroes. Lizzy replied that "the lie" was the whole basis of the created truth of canon. For some of us that truth always seemed to keep peeking out at the seams, though, and that's why we thought there would be a climax that depended on big self-realization on the good side. So at the end rather than saying, "Oh, they won because they beat Voldemort and the good guys are in charge so racism got dealt a great blow even if it isn't completely gone!" we said, "Huh. So I guess they're not going to deal with the whole bigotry thing and everything else the Slytherins represent at all. What a weird story that says absolutely nothing about bigotry." Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, just not things I really think are true or challenging. I mean, if you're a regular middle class British kid you've pretty much got nothing to learn. You get rid of the kids bullying you and then you take your correct place in society. -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Oct 5 02:08:36 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:08:36 -0000 Subject: Kreacher Komforts - Summoning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol, wondering why goblins can't Apparate without a wand if > house-elves can > We know very little about goblin magic at all, don't we. We know they can't make wands. They can make fabulous silver and jewelery (but that may only be skill, not magic). A Gringotts goblin's touch will open certain vaults, but that could be magic in the bank, not from the goblin. The same goes for the magic waterfall that washes away concealment. And that's really all we know about them! Allie (wondering where are the female goblins) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 02:33:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:33:52 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177729 > Magpie: > I think the misunderstanding here is that it's kind of slippery, > sometimes being meta and outside the text, but reflecting inside the > text as well. Gryffindors aren't responsible for what happens to > Slytherins, it's that the whole world is set up with a quarter of the > population as scapegoats by the author. Within the universe it's just > a fact that Slytherins are really just as awful as everyone thinks. > > > I guess the problem is "the lie" that Lizzyben mentioned. Adam > pointed out that "the lie" is not a lie, because Slytherin really is > bad. There was no turnaround where we learned that Slytherins only > seemed bad through the lense of our heroes. Lizzy replied that "the > lie" was the whole basis of the created truth of canon. For some of > us that truth always seemed to keep peeking out at the seams, though, > and that's why we thought there would be a climax that depended on > big self-realization on the good side. So at the end rather than > saying, "Oh, they won because they beat Voldemort and the good guys > are in charge so racism got dealt a great blow even if it isn't > completely gone!" we said, "Huh. So I guess they're not going to deal > with the whole bigotry thing and everything else the Slytherins > represent at all. What a weird story that says absolutely nothing > about bigotry." Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, > just not things I really think are true or challenging. I mean, if > you're a regular middle class British kid you've pretty much got > nothing to learn. You get rid of the kids bullying you and then you > take your correct place in society. > > -m > Alla: But how does it not say things about bigotry? I mean, assuming that you buy the idea that Slytherins are really bad ( or Slytherins are Natsis thing), isn't what the book saying for the middle class british kid that saying bad words and thinking that people of different ethnicity is BAD? What Slytherins did are bad, horrible, etc. Isn't it much more than the bullying level? I am also not sure why to be challenging the good guys should discover in themselves the same bigotry as Slytherins had and deal with it? Many people truly do not have it in themselves to be bigots, at least of the type of Purebloods rule, muggleborns need to be killed, no? I mean, it is again reflection of what was said in thread in general and NOT obviously attempt to debate perceptions, but I am just wondering how the message that people of different ethnicity ( muggleborns) are just as good as you are is not challenging. I mean, believe it or not, I never in my life called person a racist name, I NEVER in my life thought of person of different ethnicity as beneath me in some way, shape or form. I had been victim of such discrimination and know how horrible it is, soooo if I am saying for example that the type of badness that Slytherin ideology is I do not have anywhere in my mind, does it mean that I am projecting, scapegoating? I mean, you know that I do not buy that analysis in the first place, but I am just wondering if JKR indeed saying that her bad guys have some qualities that good guys do not have, why exactly is this a lie? Take more extreme example, say what you wish about Harry use of Unforgivables, but instead of killing in DH, he stuns. We can agree that he does not want to kill people, no? So it would be a safe inference that he does not have in himself what for example Crabb and Goyle have? They want to kill people, Harry does not. Right? And it is not like she does not show Gryffindors having several bad qualities IMO - they can lie, cheat, steal, be rash, reckless, etc. They are just by and large not racists and not killers ( well, there is Peter, so some of them are). It is a lie? I mean, I am replying to thread in general, but I think it is a very correct observation about human nature - A LOT of people are not racists and killers. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 02:38:15 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:38:15 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177730 > > Jen: > > I read it all pretty simply and know there's a gap in my > > logic somewhere but I'm not sure where: The AK killed the soul > > piece, almost killed Harry in the process, that caused the blood > > protection to kick in, and the blood connection is why Voldemort > > went with Harry to his near-death experience. I understood that > > the AK didn't rebound because it 'found' part of LV inside Harry > > to hit instead. > zanooda: > I don't know why I didn't think about the blood connection as a > reason for LV to be knocked out, it seems logical enough, thanks! I > mostly agree with your ideas, except for one thing. You say that AK > hit the soul-bit instead of Harry, but I always thought that AK > *had* to hit and kill Harry, otherwise the soul-bit won't be > destroyed. > > To eliminate a soul-bit inside a Horcrux, you need to destroy the > Horcrux (the container), that's what DD's book on H-xes states. > Harry is the container, so he needs to die (be destroyed), then the > soul-bit will be destroyed also. That's what I always believed, so > your remark about the AK killing the soul-bit directly was > unexpected for me. Jen: I'm trying to work this out in my mind. So the AK killed the soul piece and destroyed the container. But because Harry's tethered to LV he can't really die, just as LV can't really die; 'Neither can live while the other survives'? OK, that does make sense to me if I'm understanding your reasoning. When I said the AK 'almost killed Harry in the process,' now that sounds incorrect. I was thinking he couldn't have died because he didn't 'go on.' But that's the point, Harry's not dead because he's tethered to LV, not because he wasn't actually killed. I think. :) Tell me if I've muddled you're explanation instead of understanding it! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 03:19:13 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:19:13 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177731 Alla: > > But how does it not say things about bigotry? I mean, assuming that > you buy the idea that Slytherins are really bad ( or Slytherins are > Natsis thing), isn't what the book saying for the middle class > british kid that saying bad words and thinking that people of > different ethnicity is BAD? What Slytherins did are bad, horrible, > etc. > Isn't it much more than the bullying level? Magpie: Then it says something so incredibly obvious about bigotry that I expect a book trying to say something about bigotry to be beyond it. If bigotry was as easy as "don't call people racial slurs unless they've done something to deserve it" bigotry isn't much of an issue. It certainly doesn't say much about the why's of bigotry at the root level. Alla: > I am also not sure why to be challenging the good guys should > discover in themselves the same bigotry as Slytherins had and deal > with it > > Many people truly do not have it in themselves to be bigots, at > least of the type of Purebloods rule, muggleborns need to be killed, > no? Magpie: I've yet to meet anyone myself who didn't have it in themselves to be bigots. I notice when the subject comes up many people in dominant groups like to claim bigotry is confined to people who call people racial slurs when they haven't done enough to deserve it (or who "really mean it" when they say it). I think that's a way of avoiding talking about bigotry. The good guys are sitting pretty much at the top of a society rife with bigotry. I think they're benefiting from the bigotry in their society. They don't have to think about it beyond how dreadful those other people are, but that statue of the MoM, the one that got destroyed, remains as accurate as ever. Alla: > > I mean, it is again reflection of what was said in thread in general > and NOT obviously attempt to debate perceptions, but I am just > wondering how the message that people of different ethnicity ( > muggleborns) are just as good as you are is not challenging. Magpie: This series doesn't teach that people of different ethnicities are just as good. I think Wizards, particularly British ones, come out above plenty of other ethnicities in canon (though again it's a bit like with the Slytherins--they really are superior so it's not a lie). Harry's last line of the story proper to to think about asking his slave (who also just fought in the battle) to make him a sandwich. Everyone in their proper place. Alla: > I mean, believe it or not, I never in my life called person a racist > name, I NEVER in my life thought of person of different ethnicity as > beneath me in some way, shape or form. I had been victim of such > discrimination and know how horrible it is, soooo if I am saying for > example that the type of badness that Slytherin ideology is I do not > have anywhere in my mind, does it mean that I am projecting, > scapegoating? > I mean, you know that I do not buy that analysis in the first place, > but I am just wondering if JKR indeed saying that her bad guys have > some qualities that good guys do not have, why exactly is this a lie? Magpie: I'm not touching the personal question, but the good guys are just as much a product of their society as the bad guys, and I don't see the same invisible line between the behavior of the bad guys and the good guys. The bad guys are a lot worse, and the good guys' slips are just inconsequential it seems. But no, I don't think we've got a society of good guys tainted by those bad guys in Slytherin. I'm surprised they don't have multiple Dark Lords of different stripes all the time. There's plenty of other instances of soft bigotry on the good side as well, and in my years in fandom pointing out often gets the answer: They're not Death Eaters. It's fine. alla: > > Take more extreme example, say what you wish about Harry use of > Unforgivables, but instead of killing in DH, he stuns. We can agree > that he does not want to kill people, no? > > So it would be a safe inference that he does not have in himself > what for example Crabb and Goyle have? They want to kill people, > Harry does not. Right? Magpie: We're not talking about having it in Harry to kill someone or not (I've no idea if he does--maybe he killed people righteously as an auror, I don't know. But he's obviously not a sadistic murderer like Crabbe.) We're talking about bigotry and other more general less noble qualities. Voldemort still looks like a symptom of the WW society to me, not the disease. Alla: > They are just by and large not racists and not killers ( well, there > is Peter, so some of them are). It is a lie? I mean, I am replying > to thread in general, but I think it is a very correct observation > about human nature - A LOT of people are not racists and killers. Magpie: A lot of people are not killers. I don't agree a LOT of people are not racists if by this you mean lots of people in a dominant group that benefits from racism don't ever contribute to the inequality, ignore the inequality or take advantage of that inequality. Certainly not Harry and his friends who are surrounded by groups treated differently than their own and rarely spend much time thinking about it. Basically, based on what I'm hearing of your view of bigotry in general, I just don't agree with it. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 03:41:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:41:31 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177733 Re: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) > Magpie: > Then it says something so incredibly obvious about bigotry that I > expect a book trying to say something about bigotry to be beyond it. > If bigotry was as easy as "don't call people racial slurs unless > they've done something to deserve it" bigotry isn't much of an issue. > It certainly doesn't say much about the why's of bigotry at the root > level. Alla: Huh? Not calling people racial slurs seems to me to be the first sign of bigotry of course, but it is also of course a lot deeper, I just think that book hits on all the right symbols of the bigotry, it does not go into every detail of every Muggleborn discriminated against. > Magpie: > I've yet to meet anyone myself who didn't have it in themselves to be > bigots. Alla: Oh. Ok. > Magpie: > I'm not touching the personal question, but the good guys are just as > much a product of their society as the bad guys, and I don't see the > same invisible line between the behavior of the bad guys and the good > guys. The bad guys are a lot worse, and the good guys' slips are just > inconsequential it seems. But no, I don't think we've got a society > of good guys tainted by those bad guys in Slytherin. I'm surprised > they don't have multiple Dark Lords of different stripes all the > time. There's plenty of other instances of soft bigotry on the good > side as well, and in my years in fandom pointing out often gets the > answer: They're not Death Eaters. It's fine. Alla: No, what I am saying is the good guys do not have SOME qualities that bad guys have, that's all. Call it the hard bigotry or whatever else, but yeah, not wanting to kill unless in self defense counts to me for them being better in SOMETHING, if that makes sense. Harry deceives Goblin who in turns deceives him same or not worse, Harry does not want to kill Goblin. So, the fact that he deceives Goblin is not fine to me, but if I were to compare what he does and what Crabb and Goyle do, then yeah, I think it is better. And apparently there are no new dark lords coming, not in the book at least, so I think that means IMO of course that healing changes are happening in society. > Magpie: > We're not talking about having it in Harry to kill someone or not > (I've no idea if he does--maybe he killed people righteously as an > auror, I don't know. But he's obviously not a sadistic murderer like > Crabbe.) We're talking about bigotry and other more general less > noble qualities. Voldemort still looks like a symptom of the WW > society to me, not the disease. Alla: I **was** talking about Harry not kiling anybody, Okay before he became an auror, sure, as an example of the quality that he does not have (to be a killer) and several bad guys do. I was saying that it is not a lie that he does not have it and bad guys do, some of them. > Magpie: > A lot of people are not killers. I don't agree a LOT of people are > not racists if by this you mean lots of people in a dominant group > that benefits from racism don't ever contribute to the inequality, > ignore the inequality or take advantage of that inequality. Certainly > not Harry and his friends who are surrounded by groups treated > differently than their own and rarely spend much time thinking about > it. > > Basically, based on what I'm hearing of your view of bigotry in > general, I just don't agree with it. > > -m > Alla: Yeah, I think it comes down to this, because based on my view of bigotry I hear powerful message in the books against it. If it falls flat for you, I guess the definition of what we consider bigotry is different that's all. And by a lot of people not being racists I meant not thinking of people as inferior, not DOING anything that will discriminates against other ethnicities or races. If your definition of racism includes unknowingly using, I do not know the fruits of cheap labor or something like that, then sure I suppose many people are including me obviously. Otherwise - no, I do not think so. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 03:49:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:49:14 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177734 > > > Jen: > > > The AK killed the soul piece, almost killed Harry > > > in the process, that caused the blood protection to kick > > > in, and the blood connection is why Voldemort went with > > > Harry to his near-death experience. I understood that the > > > AK didn't rebound because it 'found' part of LV inside Harry > > > to hit instead. Mike: I still think the AK rebounded, but not at full power. That's why Voldemort got knocked out and experienced his own near-death. I think Steve postulated this version up-thread. > > zanooda: > > I don't know why I didn't think about the blood connection as a > > reason for LV to be knocked out, it seems logical enough, thanks! Mike: I thought the blood connection was the reason Harry and LV didn't die. But I thought it was because it's *Lily's* blood. It didn't keep either from being 'touched' by the spell, but it did offer Harry and Voldemort the same ultimate protection, kept them both from dying. So Harry was only *partially* protected from the AK, which then rebounds *partially* onto Voldemort who is also *partially* protected because he also has Lily blood. Both have near-deaths but neither dies. That's my hypothesis, anyway. ;) > > zanooda: > > I mostly agree with your ideas, except for one thing. You say > > that AK hit the soul-bit instead of Harry, but I always thought > > that AK *had* to hit and kill Harry, otherwise the soul-bit won't > > be destroyed. > > > > To eliminate a soul-bit inside a Horcrux, you need to destroy the > > Horcrux (the container), that's what DD's book on H-xes states. > > Harry is the container, so he needs to die (be destroyed), then > > the soul-bit will be destroyed also. That's what I always > > believed, so your remark about the AK killing the soul-bit > > directly was unexpected for me. Mike: I understand your reasoning here, Mila . The problem I'm having is the whole 'Harry must die as the "container" of the soul piece' when Harry really didn't die - Dumbledore said he wasn't dead. I believe it was Harry's soul that visited the King's Cross way station as it was Voldemort's ravaged soul from his body that made the trip. But neither's body was dead. Dumbledore told Snape that Voldy's soul piece attached itself to the only living *soul* left in the room, Harry's *soul*, at GH. So when Harry's soul departs the living world for his near-death visit with Dumbledore, Voldemort's soul piece has nothing to hold onto in the living world. It's just as destroyed as when any other Horcrux container is destroyed. But not because it's container was destroyed, because it was never *containerized*, Harry wasn't a true Horcrux. This piece attached *itself* to Harry's soul which is no longer there. And these pieces cannot survive outside of a body. > Jen: I'm trying to work this out in my mind. So the AK killed the > soul piece and destroyed the container. Mike: I say, sent Harry's soul to King's Cross. > Jen: But because Harry's tethered to LV he can't really die, > just as LV can't really die; Mike: Yes > Jen: 'Neither can live while the other survives'? Mike: Not really, and DD never acknowledges Harry's guess here, regarding the prophesy's wording. > Jen: OK, that does make sense to me if I'm understanding > your reasoning. When I said the AK 'almost killed Harry in > the process,' now that sounds incorrect. Mike: No, I think you were right the first time. "Almost killed" was correct, IMO. > Jen: I was thinking he > couldn't have died because he didn't 'go on.' But that's the point, > Harry's not dead because he's tethered to LV, not because he wasn't > actually killed. I think. :) Tell me if I've muddled you're > explanation instead of understanding it! Mike: And tell me if I've further confused the situation! ;) Because I don't like the explanation of Lily's blood acting in the same way as a Horcrux would. And Dumbledore's 'splainin leaves a lot to be desired in this case. From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 5 03:29:31 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:29:31 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177735 Delurking for a bit.... (replying to the general themes of this thread so forgive me for not quoting) Celoneth- Even if Slytherins in JKR's world embody blood racism(though I don't agree) - there is a prevalent view that muggleborns are inferior - a view not shared by Slytherins alone. As far as anti-muggle legislation, how could it have passed w/ only a quarter of the population in favour and the rest against - regardless of the political structure of the WW - passing laws opposed to by the rest of the community does not make for sensible governance. The way I read the books, is that a lot of people in the WW share the view that muggleborns are inferior or at the least odd. Even Arthur Weasley who is described as a huge muggle fan - looks at muggles as though they're amusing creatures - what could be described as patronisingly racist in its own way. Slytherins are not alone in disliking muggleborns, nor is there any indication that hating muggleborns is a required trait of Slytherin house - Slytherin did only want purebloods(though we see that half-bloods can get into Slytherin as well), but never is there a description in the sorting ceremony that Slytherin wanted only those who hate muggles/muggleborns in Slytherin house. Nor are Slytherins alone in committing murders or other unforgivable things. We have the First War MoM authorising the use of Unforgivables against suspected DEs - murder, torture, mind control against persons who had not been proven guilty in any way - merely suspected (and those accused thrown in prison w/o trial often). That to me is as pure a definition of evil as Voldemort & Co. - even worse since they were supported by the vast majority of the WW (and not by just Slytherins). We have the MoM in the Second War starting to be just as evil as the first time around. We have DD possibly killing his own sister due to his recklessness and planning taking over the non-magical world out of some twisted sense of nobility and the "greater good," both which stem from what are described as Gryffindor traits. There are countless examples in the books of horrible things that aren't attributed to Slytherin house, or the characteristics of Slytherin house. To say that all the houses are good, except for Slytherin which is inherently evil is simply not supported in evidence. There is evidence of a Gryffindor-Slytherin rivalry, the book is written from Harry's perspective so we do see Gryffindor bias. I believe that Dumbledore has the same Gryffindor bias, seeing his house, the qualities favoured by his house as the best - hence the Snape was sorted too soon comment (at least this is how I read it). I also don't get the Slytherin house = Nazi comparison. DE = Nazis I would understand, but not Slytherins in general. Phineas Nigelius tells Harry in OotP that Slytherins would always save their own necks first and that's how I've always seen Slytherin actions. Out of the entire house, only Draco, Crabbe & Goyle are actively shown as supporting Voldemort. The rest keep quiet and adjust to how things turn out - something very common in real life(as Im sure were a lot of people in other houses). The vast majority of people do not stand up, or risk their lives for some greater cause, a lot of people view saving themselves and their family to be above some grand noble purpose, especially when standing up has a high chance of failure with terrible consiquences. Doesn't make for appealing characters perhaps in literature but its very realistic. It certainly does not lower them to the level of Nazis. I've always viewed the houses as having advantages and disadvantages and hoped greatly that at the end of the series that sorting by character traits would end or be modified somehow. Sorting seems to bring out the best and worst of what each founder admired. Gryffindors are brave but reckless, Ravenclaws value knowledge but can be distant and knowledge can be for good or ill, Hufflepuffs are hardworking but can work hard at the good just as the bad, Slytherins are cunning and ambitious - at best successful and high achieving and at worst corrupt. Though we read the books largely through Harry and Dumbledore's POV hence, imo we get a huge Gryffindor bias, but I just can't buy the idea that Slytherin = evil. Situationally perhaps there was a greater prevalence of Slytherins committing horrible things because Voldemort was obsessed with achieving his ancestor's great ambition - but I wonder what would have happened if young Dumbledore had decided to put his plan for the "greater good" in action. back to lurking... Celoneth From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 04:16:13 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:16:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0710021832w44eabb7fva64684e38280b348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0710042116r42e33c8fq9401e7c8842d76fc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177736 Betsy HP: I didn't like that Hermione was so sneaky about the whole thing. And I thought it was odd that JKR tossed in Cho's comment that Marietta's mother worked at the Ministry and it put her under a lot of personal pressure... and then nothing. Lynda: Hmm. See I didn't find JKR tossing a remark concerning a minor character's parent and the fact that her job put the character under a lot of pressure strange at all. And I did not expect to see the situation addressed more in the rest of the series. Marietta was, after all Harry's ex-girlfriend's friend. Nothing less than that, but certainly nothing more. And with the length of the books already being nearer 1,000 pages each than being under 400 (for the later ones I mean) not every offhand situation or comment can be addressed. Nor should they be. Yes. Hermione was sneaky. Yes, Marietta is scarred for life--apparently anyway Both characters made poor decisions in that situation. Hermione did not fully explain that there would be sever consequences for turning on the DA and Marietta chose to do exactly that even knowing that an extremely competent witch who was capable of hexing the paper as she did was the one who had them all sign the sheet. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 5 04:46:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:46:55 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177737 > > Magpie:t. > > > I guess the problem is "the lie" that Lizzyben mentioned. Adam > pointed out that "the lie" is not a lie, because Slytherin really is > bad. There was no turnaround where we learned that Slytherins only > seemed bad through the lense of our heroes. Pippin: But there is a turnaround where we learn they're not as bad as they looked through the lenses of our heroes. Only Riddle is, and he's no longer human. Yes, Snape hated James and misunderstood Harry to the bitter end. But Snape did not betray Dumbledore and no longer was disgustingly indifferent to Harry's death. Draco did not become a nice person. But he grew brave enough to risk death in order not to abandon Goyle --in contrast to his behavior in HBP, where he did nothing about the fact that he'd let Fenrir into the school and put his friends at risk. Slughorn openly chose to fight for Hogwarts despite the reluctance he'd stated in HBP. Regulus, of the family that beheaded House Elves when they were no longer useful, chose to die rather than let an injured Elf suffer agony a second time. At the same time we learned that Gryffindors aren't as good as everyone thinks. Harry can do a cruciatus curse, Dumbledore may have been a murderer and spent five years watching innocent people die whom he might have saved. Remus was a coward who would have abandoned his pregnant wife and unborn child, Sirius was indeed cruelly indifferent to his House Elf's needs. And of course Harry was wrong to think that Snape was a murdering traitor and a coward. People can ignore or rationalize everything that contradicts their prejudices in the Potterverse just as they do in real life. It's to Harry's credit that he didn't do that in DH, even if we didn't get to see a moment where he slaps his forehead and goes OMG, I was sooo wrong about Snape. It was not a spectacular turnaround, but it was a turnaround. The text doesn't hit you over the head with it because hitting people over the head with a message is not argument, it's propaganda. A spectacular turnaround for Draco, where he not only keeps his soul but becomes a model citizen and brings his parents over to the good side would make Dumbledore's actions *less* about saving Draco's soul and more about gaining useful allies for the good side. It's not as though readers who don't notice that Harry was prejudiced against Slytherins (despite the fact that Lupin says so flat out) are going to think prejudice is okay. The story won't work, even as consolation, if you think prejudice is okay, and if the story doesn't work for the reader, it will have no power and no influence. On the other hand, if the reader doesn't need a consolation story, then its absence shouldn't be a problem. But it seems that what's missing for some is the absence of of a consolation ending in which the good guys keep their goodness and the Slytherins are revealed to be just as good. But in that case, all the evil would seem to have stemmed from Lord Voldemort, and there would be no social commentary at all, nothing about the way in which cultures and institutions can influence those who belong to them, for good or bad. The trick, canon seems to be saying, is to be like a goblin sword or like Harry's wand, and imbibe only that which strengthens you. I don't get the theory that if Snape "imbibed" to use JKR's word, the Gryffindor quality of courage that shows he's only good to the extent that he's lost his identity as a Slytherin, whereas if Dumbledore imbibes "a certain disregard for rules" (a quality which Harry realizes he can't have had as a student or he'd have found the room of Hidden Things) that's just a useful adjunct to his Gryffindor-ness and his identity is not threatened. Why? Magpie: Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, > just not things I really think are true or challenging. I mean, if > you're a regular middle class British kid you've pretty much got > nothing to learn. You get rid of the kids bullying you and then you > take your correct place in society. Pippin: This doesn't take into account how powerless kids, even regular British middle class kids, really are. They don't need to be made to feel they are evil for having vengeful thoughts about the bullies or wishing that they could know in advance who the bad people are. That is the way kids think, it's normal for them to think that way, and it's the reason we don't put them in charge. Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 06:48:24 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:48:24 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177738 > lizzyben: > > It is a lie in what it tells us about human nature. Writers have > one fundamental responsibility, and that is to tell us what it > means to be human. JKR's story lies about humanity, lies about > good & evil, & lies about herself. Mike: Single point response because I have problem with this paragraph. For me, fiction writers only have one responsibilty: to entertain me. I want to be transported into the world they have created and enjoy reading about it. I read fiction because I like the genre, or because it's funny in the case of comedic works. If the story isn't believable, I won't have an enjoyable read and probably won't continue reading that author. But I never, EVER, take my moral cues from works of fiction. If I want to read something that speaks to humanity, morals, ethics, or just generally the human condition, well, that's a whole other section of the library or Barnes & Noble. JKR created her world and the way things work in that world. Yes, she rather simplistically put all the bad guys (or almost all) into Slytherin and imbued them with the more sinister qualities. That's the way things are in this world. I'd hardly call that a statement on humanity, I'd call it how the witches and wizards are identified. Note, **witches and wizards** not our world human beings. That works for me. No matter how ambiguous or even good some of the individual members may be, I know that Slytherin is the house of bad. I want bad guys for the good guys to oppose, especially in a fantasy series. My good guys can have their faults, but they better not be as bad as the bad guy faults. And in this world they're not, imo. JKR said early on that she wasn't going for a C.S.Lewis type moralistic work. So, I've taken her at her word and not tried to read too much into this series in terms of defining the quality of it's moral underpinnings. She wrote a fantasy about wizards, for crying out loud. She stayed assiduously away from defining what is morally right in her world, imo. I see no need to call her onto the carpet for what she wasn't trying to do in the first place. Mike From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 5 04:37:46 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:37:46 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177739 > > ANGIE wrote: > > > So here is my theory. > > When Harry chose to go to his death to end it all and Voldemort > > used the AK curse the Elder wand recognised its true master and > > did not send a full powered curse at Harry refusing to kill its > > true master. > > zanooda: > > I very much agree that many things must be considered here, but I'm > kind of reluctant to include the Elder wand into this. When the > wand recognized Harry during the last confrontation, it threw LV's > curse back at him, that's how it protected it's master. > angie: Yes but in the last confrontation Harry was "armed" with Draco's wand and was defending himself with it against Voldemort. The elder wand again recognised its true master and this time could react because its master was reacting. The Expelliarmus spell Harry sent out is what actually caused the elder wand to reflect the spell back at Voldemort and this time it could protect its master 100%. In the forest Harry did nothing to defend himself and therefore the elder wand could not react against anything and had to do, all be it half heartedly and with less power, what the "master" holding it told it to do. Harry could have died if he had chosen to "go on" and catch a train but he chose to return and end it all bringing Voldemort back with him like the prophecy says...one can not survive etc.....If Harry had chosen to "go on" I think Voldemort would have had to use the horcrux inside Nagini to return. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 07:20:24 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:20:24 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177740 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > ...edited... > > Jen: I'm trying to work this out in my mind. So the > AK killed the soul piece and destroyed the container. > But because Harry's tethered to LV he can't really > die, just as LV can't really die; ... > > When I said the AK 'almost killed Harry in the > process, now that sounds incorrect. I was thinking > he couldn't have died because he didn't 'go on.' But > that's the point, Harry's not dead because he's > tethered to LV, not because he wasn't actually > killed. ... bboyminn: Here is the thing you need to consider, that death comes in levels, it is not always absolute and irrevacable. And, I've been saying this for years. People /technically/ die on the operating table all the time. Some even have out-of-body and near-death experiences. But they come back. So, as a result of the AK, Harry is technically dead. He is having a near-death experience, and like many near-death experiences, he meets a loved one who acts as his guide. Many times this loved one simply tells them it is not their time and that they must go back. In Harry's case, Dumbledore explains that Harry has a choice; go on or go back. Harry choses to go back. As to the Death Curse itself, I'm not sure it rebounded in the normal sense, but I do believe that some of its power blew back on Voldemort and put him in a state similar to Harry. Perhaps rather than a rebound, it was more like a literal or metaphoric shock wave as a result of someone who is protected from death, being hit by a Death Curse. I don't necessarily believe that Voldemort was having the same experience as Harry, meaning that Voldemort was somewhere but not necessarily Kings Cross. So, my central point, and the one relevant to Harry's experience, is that it is possible to die without being irrevocably dead. The 'container' has been destroyed by technical death, but Harry hasn't truly crossed over yet, so he still gets to come back from death. Without a viable container the Soul-Bit is lost; so in that instance, mission accomplished. I believe if Harry has chosen to 'go on', Voldmort would have also lost his body, and would have then become Vapormort-II. But that doesn't solve the problem, it only delays it. By coming back, Harry has a chance to destroy Voldemort once and for all. So that is the choice he makes. Now, in the final Duel, several things are coming into play, and in that case, we get a true and total rebound of the Death Curse. Voldemort is no longer protected, so he dies. But what made the final curse rebound? It could be complex or it could be simple. It maybe that Harry simply casting /any curse/ at the moment that Voldemort sends his curse, caused the rebound. That has been demonstrated several times in the series. It could have been Lily's protection. It could have been the Master-of-the-Wand effect. It could be Harry's self-sacrifice. Or, it could be a combination of all or some of these things. We will never know for sure, all we do know it that Harry had many things working for him in that final confrontation, and all or some of them worked. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 13:33:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:33:17 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177741 > > Magpie:t. > > > > > > I guess the problem is "the lie" that Lizzyben mentioned. Adam > > pointed out that "the lie" is not a lie, because Slytherin really is > > bad. There was no turnaround where we learned that Slytherins only > > seemed bad through the lense of our heroes. > > Pippin: > But there is a turnaround where we learn they're not as bad as > they looked through the lenses of our heroes. Magpie: Actually, that's not exactly true from my perspective because they didn't look as bad to me as they looked to Harry throughout. But regardless, we're still talking about "not as bad as"--not good. No crisis for Harry in terms of his own perspective or anything about himself. I don't remember any scene where I thought Harry felt his prejudices were being called on. I thought he was firmly on the side of "prejudice is bad!" and that his own "prejudice" on the part of Slytherins wasn't in the end prejudice at all. Snape and Draco were jerks, they did join Voldemort, they just weren't fully evil. It's a change, but more from the improper way to view Slytherins to the proper way without the Slytherins ever being equals. > Magpie: > Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, > > just not things I really think are true or challenging. I mean, if > > you're a regular middle class British kid you've pretty much got > > nothing to learn. You get rid of the kids bullying you and then you > > take your correct place in society. > > Pippin: > This doesn't take into account how powerless kids, even > regular British middle class kids, really are. They don't need > to be made to feel they are evil for having vengeful thoughts > about the bullies or wishing that they could know in advance > who the bad people are. That is the way kids think, it's > normal for them to think that way, and it's the reason we > don't put them in charge. Magpie: So they're fine the way they are. They don't need to be challenged in this way and they weren't. Though the last thing I'd call any one of the Trio was powerless, and I actually don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the power kids often do have over other kids and other people. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 5 16:01:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:01:55 -0000 Subject: Disappointing DD. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177742 "Carol" wrote: > Carol, who thinks that not even the > manipulative DD would sacrifice > his most loyal and useful follower Dumbledore probably didn't think Snape had to die for his plan to work, although he knew Snape was playing a very dangerous game so that was always a possibility. If everything went according to plan the last master of the Elder Wand (Dumbledore) would die undefeated so if anybody got their hands on the wand after that it would work OK but be nothing extraordinary, it would just be another wand. To be sure Dumbledore wanted his trusted friend Snape to take possession of the wand after his death, it probably never occurred to him that somebody would decide it was a good idea to burry it with him. No, Snape didn't have to die, but the book makes pretty clear that Dumbledore thought for his plan to work Harry had to die. By the way Carol I wonder if you agree with me that it would have made a better story if Harry had kept the Elder Wand, after all he is and will remain its master regardless of if he uses it or not. Eggplant From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 5 16:48:54 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:48:54 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177743 Alla: > But how does it not say things about bigotry? I mean, assuming that > you buy the idea that Slytherins are really bad ( or Slytherins are > Natsis thing), isn't what the book saying for the middle class > british kid that saying bad words and thinking that people of > different ethnicity is BAD? What Slytherins did are bad, horrible, > etc. > Isn't it much more than the bullying level? Magpie: > Then it says something so incredibly obvious about bigotry that I > expect a book trying to say something about bigotry to be beyond it. > If bigotry was as easy as "don't call people racial slurs unless > they've done something to deserve it" bigotry isn't much of an > issue. It certainly doesn't say much about the why's of bigotry at > the root level. Alla: > I am also not sure why to be challenging the good guys should > discover in themselves the same bigotry as Slytherins had and deal > with it? Ceridwen: The thing is, bigotry, racism or any other -ism, isn't always so obvious. If it was, it would be much easier to identify and deal with, given that people actually want to deal with it. Calling someone a name based on ethnicity or culture or looks or social status or class or birth or disability is a clear signal that something isn't right. It's those little things, the ones we wouldn't notice unless they were called to our attention, that is bigotry at its deepest and most stubborn level. Something obvious can be cut out like deadheading flowers from a plant. Finding out why the stems are rotting and the leaves are going bad is harder and takes some expertise, both to identify the cause and to fix it. Several years ago, Oprah Winfrey tried a discrimination experiment, using her audience as lab rats. Instead of using the obvious sign of color/ethnicity, she designated brown-eyed people as "better". This was based on historic examples: more brown eyed people have contributed to humanity than blue eyed people. She backed that up with examples. The minute people showed up for the taping of her next show, they were subtly segregated based on eye color. Blue eyed people weren't treated badly, but brown eyed people were treated with uniform courtesy. Brown eyed people were given choice places in line. Brown eyed people were directed to the coffee stand while blue eyed people had to find it on their own. Brown eyed people were let into the studio first, and got the best seats. No one obviously discriminated against the blue eyed patrons, but it became obvious soon enough to the blue eyed people what was going on. Another example from real life of people not noticing prejudice until someone points it out: handicapped access. A person who doesn't need a ramp or braile signs won't notice their lack, but for people who need them, the lack is no less than annoying and sometimes it makes the difference in having access to certain places or things that can benefit, and not having that access. Think books, think buildings, think parking areas. Nice people, good people, didn't notice the lack because it didn't affect them. The only way people began thinking about this access was because someone pointed it out. This is where I thought Rowling was going with the Slytherin thread. Sure, Slytherins are outright bigots more than we were shown of the other houses. But it's bigotry as well to see someone sorted into Slytherin and think, yeah, they're bad. That's a subtler form of bigotry, but it can be just as devastating to the Slytherins if someone with that attitude was in a position to affect their lives. Slytherins aren't uniformly rich, Snape proved that. A Gryffindor personnel director in a position to hire people with an anti- Slytherin bias would perhaps prefer "anyone but a Slytherin." It isn't based on race, or on class, or on birth status, just on Hogwarts house. It's still a prejudiced -ism. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 16:48:47 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:48:47 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177744 > Magpie: > I think the misunderstanding here is that it's kind of slippery, > sometimes being meta and outside the text, but reflecting inside > the text as well. Jen: It's not that I don't understand the argument, it's that I don't buy it! It reads to me now as a pseudo-psychological Freudian thing laid over the text, requiring outside source material to grasp the argument when really the complexity is found in the source material itself or the in the arguments about religion, psychology or race relations. It grows in the retelling, excluding more and more of the actual text, until two months post-DH the argument doesn't even include much from the story anymore except in a very removed way. That's how it reads to me now. The core the argument is pretty simple as far as I can tell: Slytherins are really the inferior ones, scapegoated by the dominant superior class and allowed to stick around so others have a whipping boy. Only no one realizes this because they can't see their own prejudices. Magpie: > Within the text, it's not that the good guys are being mean to > Slytherin, it's that they've got this weird scapegoat class--and > within the reality of this universe, the scapegoating actually > works (supposedly) and is true. The Slytherins are different from > they are, they (Slytherin) are the ones who are bigoted. You attack > bigotry by attacking the bigots (those other people, not us), not > by looking at the bigotry within yourself. It's a total disconnect, > and for many of us looks like projection. Jen: This is something that doesn't really hold up the argument for me. The idea is inferior kids are tracked into Slytherin house, segregated, and then become the source of bigotry and hatred the rest of the school. And yet, there's really no definable way for how this plays out, how they are forced into their place. There are counter- examples that this occurs in fact. It also strikes me as a dominant- group argument: 'If you people would only look at yourselves and how you've wronged us from the start by segregating us and forcing us to be bad people (when those of us with purebloodist leanings actually chose Slytherin house to begin with because we think it superior or our parents told us we'd be in it from birth), then we wouldn't have to torture and kill you.' It's also plainly not true that all Slytherins buy into pureblood supremacy. There are main characters as well as background characters who don't live this out, including the obvious omission that Voldemort would have a huge army if every Slytherin leaving school since he first rose to power believed in his agenda. The assumption I hear in the argument is that those who are fighting against something prejudicial and wrong should never think bad thoughts or do wrong things or feel self-righteous indignation or any human behavior that's an honest negative expression of what such a situation engenders. It reads that way even if it's not intended and I find it a troubling view, that victims have to walk and talk and act a certain way in order to be somehow worthy of rising up against evil actions. Because evil actions do abound in the story that are a lot more bothersome than Marietta or Draco on the train for me, yet incidents like that seem to be thrust in the forefront as if they actually tell me more about how evil evolves more than the rather horrifying idea of a classmate's father approving of the attempted torture and murder of a 14 yr. old in a graveyard! It's like apples and oranges, and no amount of sophisticated exposition has proven otherwise to me. I knew Draco wasn't really *bad*; he jeers, he heckles, he taunts, he schemes...but in the end, when he has a chance to really hurt Harry or do something twisted and evil to Harry on the train, he stomps on his face and hand and leaves him on the train to go back to London. It's something I bought into while reading the story so I could enjoy finding out how his trajectory would end in Harry's eyes, and I wasn't disappointed by DH - Draco and Harry aren't the same two boys who met in Madame Malkins *to me*, and that's all I can say with certainty. Jen From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 18:04:43 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:04:43 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177745 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Snape was reduced to (or turned out to be, since the Snape I > > imagined wasn't the canon Snape at all, unfortunately) a rather > > pathetic little man, blindly following the instructions of a > > portait, while obsessing over a dead woman. > > > >>Carol responds: > "Blindly following the instructions of a portrait"? Funnily enough, > the last thing we see him do is to tell that portrait not to worry, > that *he* has a plan. So the whole doe Patronus/Sword in the well > plan is Snape's. > Betsy Hp: But it was still Snape operating under the watchful (though dead ::shudder::) eye of Dumbledore, IMO. I'd been eagerly anticipating Snape acting on his own, and was disappointed. (I'd been eagerly anticipating Harry acting on his own, for that matter. Another disappointment.) And where I thought we'd learn that Snape's redemption came about because of his own inner principles, instead, he was motivated by a (IMO) bizarre, sad, and incredibly unhealthy fixation on a random girl. It was a huge let down for me. > >>Carol: > Had he not asked (not begged) Voldemort to save Lily, probably > wording the request as a reward for his services (he could harly > let LV know that he loved any woman, much less a "Mudblood"), > Lily would not have had the choice to live which activated the > ancient magic without which Harry would be dead and Voldemort would > not have created his own enemy. > Betsy Hp: Like the butterfly that flaps his wings in Brazil and causes rainfall in China? Sure, Snape was an important cog in the machine of JKR's plot. But it's hard for me to admire a cog or a random butterfly. I was looking to Snape to be a man. An independent, thinking, fully fleshed man. Instead we get a guy whose random passion puts a ball in motion competely by accident. I don't admire Harry for tripping over a rake and landing in a big pile of win, and so I don't admire Snape for accidently setting Harry's fall into motion. (Especially since Snape's accident started from such a selfish motivation in the first place, IMO.) > >>Carol: > > And love for JKR is the most powerful and admirable of motives... > Betsy Hp: This is almost a side issue, but frankly, I don't like JKR's version of love as put forth by the Potter series. It's creepy, self- involved, possesive, and incredibly judgemental. Honestly, I don't think I'd call it love at all. > >>Carol: > > After years of helping and protecting Harry and risking his life > lying and spying for DD, he does what only he can do--kills DD at > DD's own request, saving Draco's life and soul into the bargain. > Betsy Hp: Yes, Snape did those things. And it was very brave. And then, in DH, he did nothing with Draco. Why'd he even save the boy (life and soul) in the first place? I'd thought it was because he cared for both Draco and his family. But DH showed that to be a lie. Honestly, I think saving Draco was a side-effect of Dumbledore's little war. Snape's motivations didn't matter. He just did as he was told. Bravely, but (IMO) blindly, without reasoning out the whys and wherefores for himself. > >>Carol: > > His role is so important that the book is inconceivable without it. > Betsy Hp: As a cog. Not as a man. I don't care about what moves the plot forward when I'm looking at a character. I care about what makes them tick, and for Snape, unfortunately, we learn it wasn't anything much good. > >>Carol: > You seem to want to ignore the Snape who has gone before... > Betsy Hp: On the contrary, I weep for the Snape who came before and the man he almost was. Unfortunately, it was all whimsy and may-have-beens. And we're stuck with a plot cog with questionable motives. > >>Carol: > In DH, Snape is necessarily off-page most of the time... > Betsy Hp: It wasn't necessary for Snape to be off-page. It was a writing choice JKR made. And yes, this is a bit of a quibble, but that Snape suddenly disappeared from the book, only to randomly show up to creak the plot forward at the end struck me as weak story-telling (bad choice to ignore your protagonist's shadow like that, IMO). To reduce Snape's role from Harry's shadow to a plot cog was... well, it was weird, IMO. It sucked the soul out of the series for me. Suddenly it was just a shoot-em-up between Voldemort and Harry. And since I don't think writing battle scenes is one of JKR's strengths, it was an odd place for her to go, IMO. > >>Carol: > To see Snape clearly and see him whole, we must look at the whole > picture... Betsy Hp: I have done, Carol. And, since we cannot ignore DH, I see Snape as much reduced. From risking his life and soul for a student (Draco) and dominating the attacking DE's with a glance (HBP), Snape as headmaster cannot keep his charges from being permanently scarred. Cannot control a rather stupid (as per the books, anyway) pair of DE's. And does nothing to help a family I thought were his friends. It's tragic really. In a very bleak sort of way. Betsy Hp From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 18:38:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:38:38 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177746 > > Magpie: > > I think the misunderstanding here is that it's kind of slippery, > > sometimes being meta and outside the text, but reflecting inside > > the text as well. > > Jen: It's not that I don't understand the argument, it's that I don't > buy it! It reads to me now as a pseudo-psychological Freudian thing > laid over the text, requiring outside source material to grasp the > argument when really the complexity is found in the source material > itself or the in the arguments about religion, psychology or race > relations. Magpie: I assure you I didn't mean anybody who didn't see it couldn't understand it--those are two different things. I understand the objections of people who wanted more mourning, I just didn't see the same problem. But to me it's not pseudo-psychological or Freudian or laid onto the text. It is the text. I don't need to look to Freud or symbolism or subtext when it looks like text to me. I can't read this set up with the Slytherins and not see it as this because that's just what I've seen happening all along and still do--it's just a question of whether or not it's going to be acknowledged or not, and it's not. I see this huge society that's got institutionalized elitism from top to bottom, permeating everything, and fighting with Slytherin just reads like a ritual to me more than any honest tackling of the problem of bigotry. (And no, I don't put Slytherin on the "have not" side of elitism--they're wizards. They're part of the elite.) Jen:The core the argument is pretty > simple as far as I can tell: Slytherins are really the inferior ones, > scapegoated by the dominant superior class and allowed to stick > around so others have a whipping boy. Only no one realizes this > because they can't see their own prejudices. Magpie: That makes it rude for me to talk about what I see in the books, unfortunately, because saying what I honestly see becomes telling strangers something about their own self-awareness and bigotry, of which I know nothing. It's still what I honestly see. I wish it didn't translate into a personal insult, or calling other people racists, or challenging anyone's personal claim of never being racist at all. But I find it impossible to talk about this aspect of the book without doing that apparently. That's what I see in the text. I am not speculating on why some other reader I don't know sees it or not. Because they can't see their own prejudices? I don't know--prejudices against who, since everybody in this book is fictional? It doesn't seem to me to have to do with not realizing anything, but just flatly disagreeing. But that's still the way I see the text. And I don't know how to get around it since this has been stated out as the wider difference of opinon about the world as well. When I talk about bigotry, I think it's part of being a regular person in a society with inequalities. Especially if you're part of the dominant group and so don't have to think about race. > Magpie: > > Within the text, it's not that the good guys are being mean to > > Slytherin, it's that they've got this weird scapegoat class--and > > within the reality of this universe, the scapegoating actually > > works (supposedly) and is true. The Slytherins are different from > > they are, they (Slytherin) are the ones who are bigoted. You attack > > bigotry by attacking the bigots (those other people, not us), not > > by looking at the bigotry within yourself. It's a total disconnect, > > and for many of us looks like projection. > > Jen: This is something that doesn't really hold up the argument for > me. The idea is inferior kids are tracked into Slytherin house, > segregated, and then become the source of bigotry and hatred the rest > of the school.And yet, there's really no definable way for how this > plays out, how they are forced into their place. Magpie: I didn't say they were forced into their place by anybody but the author who created them as actual bigots and then created a house where these characters were correctly and enthusiastically Sorted. I'm not painting the Slytherins as maligned victims, but I am saying that yeah, to me they're a handy scapegoat for this fictional society that they need. (They seem to totally ENJOY being this scapegoat as well. The way they're seen by others is exactly the way they are. If Slytherins were real people I would absolutely suspect that I wasn't getting the real story, but they're not real. They're entirely made up to be exactly this. Why would anyone want to be in Slytherin? It's a mystery to me. Don't ask me to fathom how a Slytherin's mind works.) Other people don't discriminate against Slytherins--they're right to think about Slytherins the way they do. They correctly see what's wrong with them. They spend no time at all thinking about what's wrong in themselves (and get a lot of spontaneous outside validation that they're exceptionally great just as they are). They're not bigots at all, because they're not Death Eaters. Many of the things that look like examples of bigotry to me, albeit a less violent kind, don't seem to count. I can't read the book from the pov of somebody secure in not being bigoted at all, because I'm not secure in that. When I'm reading along in a book that holds up bigotry as the central issue of evil, I'm on the lookout for it. And in years in the HP fandom--strictly anecdotal here of course--but I've read far more defenses of what I consider bigotry (albeit a milder, less deadly kind) inspired by this series--not one of the things I appreciate the books for. They don't deal much with the whys of bigotry since most of the normal characters in the book don't struggle with it. The people they look down on (and "looking down on" doesn't have to imply being mean to, harassing or killing) they do correctly or with noblesse oblige. Reading about the Slytherins doesn't give me much to go on in terms of the psycholgy of bigotry, since their inner lives and thoughts aren't much gone into, and their bigotry almost gets lost in their overall badness besides. And also in my experience in fandom--again totally anecdotally, but I've certainly read this argument many times--if a reader likes a particular Slytherin, their bigotry often becomes not really bigotry in their eyes. I've still no idea of the historical background about how Wizards feel about Muggle-borns, or any real sense of how they're viewed by anybody but psychotic DEs. It makes sense they would frighten them: Wizards base their entire identities on having magic so have good reason to be terrified of anything that reminds them how close they are to Muggles, imo. Yet even when the WW is finally taken over by LV I didn't have a sense of it--the anti-Muggle-born stuff didn't build on anything we'd heard from Draco (our mouthpiece for the Pureblood view) and introduced an entirely new and fantastic (even by WW standards) idea of a Muggle being able to "steal" a Wizard's magic. Did anyone really believe that? It sounded like something the MoM came up with at the last minute because they had to say something. Anti-Muggle-born or anti-Slytherin prejudice (if one thinks there is such a thing) is still in-fighting within the same group. These are all kids who are Wizards and go to Hogwarts. In the end, to paraphrase Dan Hemmings, I don't think the fictional world is used here to explore bigotry much at all, but rather bigotry is used to explore the world. I know the word "Mudblood" is bad because it's like calling somebody a racial slur in the real world, and I relied on the real world to explain why things were happening in the WW more and more in DH. I don't get it from the context of the story--it just is. Jen: > It's also plainly not true that all Slytherins buy into pureblood > supremacy. There are main characters as well as background > characters who don't live this out, including the obvious omission > that Voldemort would have a huge army if every Slytherin leaving > school since he first rose to power believed in his agenda. Magpie: Actually, buying into the pureblood supremacy idea doesn't mean joining with Voldemort. We've seen some examples of Slytherins who buy into Pureblood supremacy but don't join Voldemort. But still as usual, the best Slytherins are almost always dead or not appearing as such. Jen: > > The assumption I hear in the argument is that those who are fighting > against something prejudicial and wrong should never think bad > thoughts or do wrong things or feel self-righteous indignation or any > human behavior that's an honest negative expression of what such a > situation engenders. It reads that way even if it's not intended and > I find it a troubling view, that victims have to walk and talk and > act a certain way in order to be somehow worthy of rising up against > evil actions. Magpie: No, my assumption is that people fighting against something prejudicial and wrong will surely think bad things and do wrong things. What I don't see is any acknowledgement that they are really doing or thinking anything very wrong. Their view of the situation seems to me to be totally correct with any slip ups fairly inconsequential or the natural mistake of someone on the right path. They're just not very self-reflective at all, and are never much challenged with different povs. In the end they're pretty much right. They also don't seem built to be defended from this kind of scutiny rather than invite it. This doesn't at all mean that they have to act a certain way to stand up against evil actions. It means that *I* am less interested in heroes that don't have to learn anything or grow (especially when I see places where they could), and also that I still don't consider this story to say much about bigotry. I think the Slytherins and Tom Riddle could have been slapped with a completely different center of evil and the story would work the same way, and while this specific group of tyrants have been defeated, I don't see much in the way of a greater victory for the world. Jen: > Because evil actions do abound in the story that are a lot more > bothersome than Marietta or Draco on the train for me, yet incidents > like that seem to be thrust in the forefront as if they actually tell > me more about how evil evolves more than the rather horrifying idea > of a classmate's father approving of the attempted torture and murder > of a 14 yr. old in a graveyard! Magpie: Actually I do think something like Marietta says a lot more about how evil evolves than Draco's father approving the attempted torture and murder of a 14 year old in a graveyard, at least to me. The latter is more evil, but I'm not seeing it evolving at all. By contrast, I saw how the Marietta thing happened and understood Hermione's mindset. I saw how Hermione and her friends reacted to it. Lucius is already an extreme bad guy, and his actions aren't presented as a good thing. Perhaps if I'd seen him back in his fifth year I'd see more danger signs that would show which way he was going--or else he'd be telegraphing it already like his other house members. -m From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Oct 5 19:00:40 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:00:40 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > (They seem to totally ENJOY being this > scapegoat as well. The way they're seen by others is exactly the way > they are. If Slytherins were real people I would absolutely suspect > that I wasn't getting the real story, but they're not real. They're > entirely made up to be exactly this. Why would anyone want to be in > Slytherin? It's a mystery to me. Don't ask me to fathom how a > Slytherin's mind works.) And Mus notes: This is a world where house-elves like being enslaved (and that is the resolution of their story), so perhaps it is no surprise to find that the invented Slytherin mind works thus. Mus From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 19:15:25 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:15:25 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177748 > Jen:The core the argument is pretty > > simple as far as I can tell: Slytherins are really the inferior > ones, > > scapegoated by the dominant superior class and allowed to stick > > around so others have a whipping boy. Only no one realizes this > > because they can't see their own prejudices. > > Magpie: > That makes it rude for me to talk about what I see in the books, > unfortunately, because saying what I honestly see becomes telling > strangers something about their own self-awareness and bigotry, of > which I know nothing. It's still what I honestly see. I wish it > didn't translate into a personal insult, or calling other people > racists, or challenging anyone's personal claim of never being > racist at all. Jen: I'm just going to pick out this one piece because there's a big misunderstanding here! I was *not* talking about people; I was talking about the characters and their prejudices. I'm sorry it came across another way. I thought it was obviously about the characters because I said: 'the core of the argument' and then started talking about the Slytherins. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 19:26:17 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:26:17 -0000 Subject: T-BAY: Plot Hole Filler Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177749 Mike was walking with Faith down Wavering Lane. It ran right next to the water, therefore offering a clear view of Theory Bay. Faith pointed out into the Bay, "Doesn't she look spendid out there!" Mike, looking where Faith was pointing, "Who do you mean?" "Tabouli. Doesn't she look proud on the good SHIP LOLLIPOPS? You'd think she was a Captain in the Royal Navy." "That's the LOLLIPOPS?! When did they get three masts? "Oh, they got an upgrade after the last canon." Faith lowered her voice, "I heard they scavanged a lot off of those other abandoned SHIPS. Tabouli insists they used new Can(n)ons, but, well... Did you see CUPID'S BLUDGER?^1 It ran aground years ago, but all of a sudden all of the 'Snape Loved' hardware is gone from it's frame." "No! Tabouli wouldn't *do* that! ... Though... she was known for combining her answers to multiple posts into one message..." Faith gave Mike a knowing look, but said nothing. "Well, even if she did borrow, the SHIP looks magnificent" As they walked on, Faith asked, "Where are we going?" "I had to pick up something for George," Mike shook a shopping bag he was carrying. "George is working on the Canon Cottage." Faith looked askance, "What is he trying to do now?" Canon Cottage had just been topped out with it's 7th and final floor. It had suffered a work stoppage between the 4th and 5th floors, and when the contractor/author finally renegotiated her contract and resumed construction, it seems the blueprints had all been changed. The Cottage now resembled the Burrow, the last three floors didn't look supported by the previous four. Lot's of people said they were held in place by magic/shesezso. Mike answered, "George said the final three floors have too many Plot Holes. He's determined to fix them before the Encyclopedia comes out. That's *if* the Encyclopedia comes out! I'm not sure the contractor/author intends to wrap up this work?!" Faith is shaking her head, "I keep telling George those are intended openings. Why won't he believe that they comply with the blueprints?" "You know George, ever since he found out Snape didn't gradually come to the realizition that Voldemort wasn't who he purported to be, he's been on this 'must fix up the Cottage' kick." "What did you bring him?" Faith was looking skeptically at Mike's shopping bag. "I'll show you when we get there" As Faith and Mike approached the Cottage, they could see George hanging out one of the upper floor windows. He was muttering to himself; every so often they could make out "Thestrals.." or "Regulus..." mixed in with the occasional curse word. Geoge caught sight of the duo and shouted out, "Did you get it?" Mike shook the bag, "Right here, George." In no time, George was holding the front door open and beckoning Faith and Mike to enter. "Take it out, let me see it." Mike pulled out a silver spindly looking object that had what appeared to be a measuring device on one side and some kind of printing device on the other side. George looked crestfallen, "That's it? That's the Plot Hole Filler? How the hell is that thing suppose to work?" Faith looked scandalized, "George!! There's no need for that language." George paid her no attention, "Did they tell you how to use it? Where am I suppose to stick it?" Mike bit back the retort he was thinking. "You just put it over the plot hole, and it does the rest. Look George, I didn't make the thing. I just picked it up, on your instructions, I might add." Faith, sensing an argument, interjected, "Let's just try it out, shall we? Where do you want to start, George?" "OK, let's do. I have lot's of them up on the seventh floor. We'll start with something small." After climbing the stairs, George stood over a small hole in the floor. "This one is called 'Thestrals grazing'. I wasn't going to bother with it, it being so small. Let's see if that ... thing, can fill it." Mike set the PHF on the hole. The measuring arms immediately went to work, the whole thing was humming and rattling about. Finally, with the printer side over the hole, the PHF printed out something that covered the hole. Mike lifted the PHF out of the way and they all looked down to see what the PHF had filled the hole with. "Mice?", said George. "It filled it with mice? What does that mean?" "I think it means that the Thestrals were eating mice in the Weasley's garden." Mike offered. "The Weasley's have mice plants?" George looked confused. "No, George." Faith said. "I think it means that the Weasleys do have a lot of varmints running around. That's what the Thestrals were eating, not grazing on grass, grazing on the abundance of mice." "Will that hold up?" George asked to noone in particular. "We'll see, I suppose," Mike answered, "Better than the hole, isn't it?" George seemed unconvinced. Nonetheless, he headed over to a larger hole in the wall. This one didn't go all the way through, and the surrounding wall was well made, making the hole more prominent. Yet one wasn't sure that the hole wasn't intentional. George pointed to it and intoned, "This one is 'Regulus knowing about the cave Horcrux'. See, we know how Regulus knew about the cave from Kreacher. But where and how did he learn it was a Horcrux that Voldemort put in the basin? Oh yeah, look deeper. See that other opening, that one's 'Who refilled the basin the second time with green goo?' OK, let's see what the PHF can do with this." Mike pushed the PHF into the hole and it went to work. It finished filling the first hole and Mike snatched it out before it started on the second. He looked in and read out loud, "Self-filling Basin" Faith looked pleased. "Of course! The basin was always self-filling. Voldemort wouldn't trust it and sped up the process after Kreacher drank it. But it would have re-filled itself and did so after Regulus drank the stuff." George seemed satisfied so far. "OK, that's not a bad plug. Stick it back in, let's see what it does for the rest." Mike couldn't help but sense that George may be changing his opinion. He replaced the PHF over the hole. This time it took much longer, but finally it spit something out. This patch jobbed looked rather patchy. This time George read, "Slughorn and the Black Library... What?" Mike thought for a moment then said, "I think I understand. Regulus was in Slughorn's House, he was the Seeker on the Slytherin Quidditch team. He was probably smart enough, and being a Black, was probably in the Slug Club." "What if Reggie was bound and determined to discover what Voldemort had hidden away, what was so important for him to go through such an elaborate scheme. He was obviously determined to get revenge on Voldemort for trying to kill Kreacher. So he finds the name Horcrux in one of his family's library books. He asks Slughorn in the same way that Tom Riddle asked, except he wanted to know what a Horcrux was, what was their purpose, not how one makes them." Faith interrupts, "Yes, of course, Regulus found out about Horcruxes in the same way Riddle found out. Naturally, he would assume that a Horcrux was the thing that was hidden in the cave." George looked from Faith to Mike. "Where did you come up with that crap? You've got some warped ideas." This time, Faith looked furious. "GEORGE!! We never criticize the patrons. If you don't like the theory, tell us why. And you had better back up your reasoning. But we never, EVER criticize the theory proposer. Got that?! George looked quite sheepish. "Yes ma'am. I'm sorry." He said the last to Mike. "That's okay, George. I've been called worse. Listen, I've got to get going. I'll leave the Plot Hole Filler with you. It doesn't have to be returned for a week. If you don't want to use it, offer it to the other listees. Maybe they'll want to try it out." 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." Mike winked at Faith, "Keep the faith, Faith." "Always." she then whispered, "Thanks for giving George something to keep him busy." Faith winked back as Mike headed for the stairs and left the Cottage. ************************************************ ^1. http://hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#bludger The rest of the commentary was from HBP and DH. But you all knew that. ;-) Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 20:46:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:46:37 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177750 Magpie wrote: > This series doesn't teach that people of different ethnicities are > just as good. I think Wizards, particularly British ones, come out > above plenty of other ethnicities in canon (though again it's a bit > like with the Slytherins--they really are superior so it's not a > lie). Harry's last line of the story proper to to think about asking > his slave (who also just fought in the battle) to make him a > sandwich. Everyone in their proper place. Carol responds: I tend to think of the Centaurs, Goblins, and House-Elves as separate species ("races," they would call themselves) rather than "ethnicities," which implies that they are merely ethnically (racially or culturally) different from Wizards (Muggles not even being considered in their thinking any more than they were considered by the sculptor of the original golden fountain). As Hermione points out when she notes that Firenze has four legs, these beings are not human They have different values, different sensibilitites from humans. (Centaurs consider themselves superior but are, IMO, just as bigoted as the humans they criticize.) The Centaurs (three or four of them, anyway) end up fighting against Voldemort alongside the Wizards. So do the House-Elves of Hogwarts--not for freedom, which it's been made clear throughout the series that they don't want, but because they know that they will be abused if Voldemort wins. "Master Regulus, champion of House-Elves," would never have broken Kreacher's heart by freeing him. He was just avenging the horrible abuse that Kreacher had suffered at Voldemort's hands. The Goblins don't join in the fight. They remain interested only in themselves--and receive their comeuppance when the Sword of Gryffindor is magically taken from them and returned to its rightful owners. The statue was inaccurate primarily in the slavish adoration depicted on the faces of the Centaur and the Goblin. Centaurs chiefly want to be left alone to rule themselves: "Our laws are not your laws, Human." What Goblins want (aside from renting rather than selling their works) is not clear, and even Bill, who knows them and likes some of them, realizes that they are self-interested and vindictive. House-elves, in contrast, *want* to serve. It's their nature. They're not human; they're essentially the brownies of fairy tales altered as JKR altered many creatures of myth and legend for the purpose of her story. If Kreacher were an enslaved Muggle, we would be right to be appalled by Harry's request for a sandwich. But he's a House-Elf, happily and willingly serving Harry because Harry has shown respect for his true (but dead) master, Regulus, and his cause (destroying the locket). If Harry were to go down to the kitchens to make himself a sandwich, I doubt that he would be allowed to do so. The House-Elves would make it for him, and perhaps be offended by his request. And Kreacher would probably be hurt, thinking that Master Harry undervalued his services. "Kreacher would be most happy to serve you, Master Harry. Do you wish a treacle tart and some pumpkin juice as well?" Hermione may still be under the delusion that House-Elves want freedom, but clearly, all they really want is safety and employment and appreciation. Kreacher would be as hurt, perhaps as distraught, as Winky if Harry were to offer him his freedom now. He wants work (now that he considers his master worthy of his service). He does not want to be paid. And he does not want to be paid. That's not what Regulus stood for, and it's not what he was fighting for. Carol, who sees no RW analogy for the House-Elves and thinks that both Hermione and the reader should listen to what they themselves say that they want From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 5 21:12:46 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:12:46 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177751 > > Betsy Hp: > But it was still Snape operating under the watchful (though > dead ::shudder::) eye of Dumbledore, IMO. I'd been eagerly > anticipating Snape acting on his own, and was disappointed. (I'd > been eagerly anticipating Harry acting on his own, for that matter. > Another disappointment.) Pippin: "We are honor-bound to give service to the present Headmaster of Hogwarts!" cried a frail-looking old wizard whom Harry recognized as Dumbledore's predecessor, Armando Dippet. "Shame on you, Phineas!" __OOP ch 22. Dumbledore's portrait is honor-bound to serve Snape, the current Headmaster. If Snape takes the portrait's direction and not vice-versa, it is because they both so choose. That *is* acting on one's own, just as Percy was acting of his own volition when he served Fudge. Betsy_HP > And where I thought we'd learn that Snape's redemption came about > because of his own inner principles, instead, he was motivated by a > (IMO) bizarre, sad, and incredibly unhealthy fixation on a random > girl. It was a huge let down for me. Pippin: There was nothing random about Snape's love for Lily. They were best friends. Their relationship was dysfunctional, the elephant in the living room being Snape's anti-Muggle feelings, which Lily enabled to some extent by making excuses for him. But I don't find that *incredibly* unhealthy. Most relationships have some dysfunction in them. His lasting grief might have been unhealthy under normal circumstances, but it seems that only in the memory of his loss could he find the courage to defy Voldemort. In that he's no different than Dumbledore, Slughorn, or Harry himself. But that is a principle, valuing a lost love over anything Voldemort could provide, including other women. Nor is Snape a stalker. He does not attempt to see Lily after she makes it clear she will not accept his apology. One incident doth not a stalking make. He does not react to seeing her in her nightdress, and she's not concerned to appear in it. I read that as Snape not seeing Lily entirely as a sex object, and being seen so as not a concern of hers. Harry also cried when he read Lily's letter "brushing the wetness from his eyes" was that unhealthy too? I mean, Mum's been dead for years, kid, get over it :) Oh, and Slughorn also tears up when he remembers Lily. She was apparently an extraordinary person and lots of people still miss her. What's wrong with that? > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, Snape did those things. And it was very brave. And then, in > DH, he did nothing with Draco. Why'd he even save the boy (life and > soul) in the first place? Pippin: If it's Draco's soul that matters, and it's safe, what else needs to be done? Turn the boy into a cog in Dumbledore's plan? Draco was given his freedom, or as much freedom as he could have with Voldemort still at large. Being hidden by the Order would be a second best option for a DE, since it's not possible to hide from Voldemort if he really wants to kill you. The best option is to have Voldemort consider you not worth killing. As long as Voldemort is no longer planning to kill Draco, he's safer not running away. > > Betsy Hp: > I have done, Carol. And, since we cannot ignore DH, I see Snape as > much reduced. From risking his life and soul for a student (Draco) > and dominating the attacking DE's with a glance (HBP), Snape as > headmaster cannot keep his charges from being permanently scarred. > Cannot control a rather stupid (as per the books, anyway) pair of > DE's. And does nothing to help a family I thought were his friends. > Pippin: What he does to help the family that were his friends is to bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible. Dumbledore has a plan and Snape trusts that it will result in the Dark Lord's downfall ASAP, as indeed it does. I thought, from the way that McGonagall had no trouble at all controlling the Carrows (I thought her "gallant" was the ultimate in sarcasm) that like Umbridge, the Carrows had to be endured despite the damage they caused. Getting rid of them would not address the root of the problem, which is a powerful outside agency interfering at Hogwarts. Like Umbridge, the Carrows are only emissaries. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 5 22:14:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:14:34 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177752 angie: > Yes but in the last confrontation Harry was "armed" with Draco's wand and was defending himself with it against Voldemort. The elder wand again recognised its true master and this time could react because its master was reacting. The Expelliarmus spell Harry sent out is what actually caused the elder wand to reflect the spell back at Voldemort and this time it could protect its master 100%. > > In the forest Harry did nothing to defend himself and therefore the elder wand could not react against anything and had to do, all be it half heartedly and with less power, what the "master" holding it told it to do. > > Harry could have died if he had chosen to "go on" and catch a train but he chose to return and end it all bringing Voldemort back with him like the prophecy says...one can not survive etc.....If Harry had chosen to "go on" I think Voldemort would have had to use the horcrux inside Nagini to return. > Carol responds: I don't think that the first confrontation has anything to do with the Elder Wand at all. For one thing, neither Dumbledore in "King's Cross" nor Harry afterward mentions the wand in connection with Harry's out-of-body experience and the destruction of the soul bit. For another, Harry isn't sure even the second time around that he's the true master of the wand. I think that the wand had no way of knowing until Harry made his announcement to LV that Harry was its master but, being sentient (wands can hear commands and "learn" from their masters and choose the wizard that they serve), it heard and understood what had happened with Draco and *chose* to serve Harry, who had captured it from its master, Draco, rather than Voldemort, who had merely stolen it from the grave of a former master, Dumbledore, without defeating him. The gleam in Dumbledore's eye in GoF comes from the realization that Harry and Voldemort will share a drop of blood, meaning that Voldie's attempt to kill Harry (regardless of the wand he uses) will most likely result in destroying only the soul bit, not killing Harry. But for that to happen, and for Harry's "death" to have its full effect, Harry must enter the confrontation unarmed and willingly sacrifice himself, as his mother did. Snape says, "The boy...the boy must die?" and DD answers, "And Voldemort must do it." That's the message Harry receives from the dying Snape, and that message makes all the difference. Love--Lily's self-sacrifice and the resulting blood protection, Harry's willingness to die to save others, Snape's love of Lily, which paradoxically gave Lily's sacrifice its power--is the key in the first confrontation. Not only does Harry survive because of the blood protection, Voldie's spells won't hold because of his intended self-sacrifice. The wand has nothing to do with it. Voldie asks what will stop Harry from dying the second time around (evidently, the blood protection won't suffice or has expired): "If it is not love that will save you this time, you must believe that you have magic that I do not, or else a weapon more powerful than mine!" Harry replies, "I believe both" (DH Am. ed. 739). Although the conversation weaves away from this topic onto DD and Snape and love again, it eventually centers on the Elder Wand, which is both the magic LV doesn't have (he's not ist master) and the more powerful weapon. The last thing Harry tells LV before LV tries to kill him is that he's the true master of the Elder Wand. In the first confrontation, LV's spell does not rebound. It kills the Horcrux, and, had it not been for the blood protection, would have killed Harry with it. This time, however, both wands recognize Harry as their master and the spells collide. The Elder Wand flies into the hand of "the master that it would not kill" (743-44) and Voldemort is "killed by his own rebounding curse" (744), which never hits Harry (in contrast to GH) but merely bounces off the Expelliarmus that it collides with. As for Voldemort using the Horcrux in Nagini to return, I don't think he could have done so. His mangled soul seems too helpless to return to his body on its own. Possibly the soul bit could have chosen on its own to leave Nagini and return to its master, but I don't know if that's possible, either. Maybe Voldie would have remained a living body without a soul, rather like Barty Jr. and would have died the moment Nagini was killed. I rather think that's what would have happened but am curious as to what others think. Carol, who sees nothing "half-hearted" in the AK that killed the Horcrux and would have killed Harry had it not been for the shared drop of blood From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 5 23:13:42 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:13:42 -0000 Subject: Harry: "I WANT THE TRUTH!" (Was: Seeking the truth )--LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177753 Carol, Jen and Alla did much working getting this thread going and prompting me to force out those thoughts which have been tootling around in my head for the last 2+ months. Thanks, guys. I needed that push, because this issue really matters to me. :) What follows is ridiculously long, and for that I apologize. But this one's sort of my personal journey with the book & series, you know? And ya gotta do what ya gotta do sometimes. Something which distressed me tremendously upon the first reading of Deathly Hallows was Albus Dumbledore. Not so much discovering that he had had a bit more seemly & checkered past than I'd ever realized or guessed... not really that. But rather, discovering that he was more of a puppetmaster than I had ever wanted to believe, and that he kept so very much from others, most notably from Snape and from *Harry.* (Yeah, color me na?ve.) I posted about this issue here and elsewhere, I got some response, I felt better. And yet I still found myself not wholly convinced that DD had acted correctly when it came to information dissemination. I kept thinking, "But Harry had a right to KNOW, to know it ALL." And I knew in my mind that Harry had *said* he wanted to know it all. So I embarked upon read #2. I started looking for places where Harry had expressed this desire, this need, as well as places where that intersected with revelations about DD. I feel like this was a fascinating thing for JKR to have included in her final volume, this juxtaposition of our discoveries about Albus Dumbledore's failings & weaknesses and Harry's very strong desire for *all* the answers -- for what I'd call the Whole Truth. (Yeah, capitalizing that is probably cornball, but there you have it.) What we discover in DH is a DD who has "a thing" about power, as in a thing about a desire for power, a desire to be The One who calls the shots, who decides what should be done, who determines who should get the information ? and not just who but when, how and how MUCH information. It really became clear to me that Harry's quest for the whole truth really was tripped up very much by this trait of DD's, and I really wanted to know: Who was right? Who was right about just how much of The Truth Harry needed/deserved to know, and about when he should know it? Harry *claimed* to want to know it all, and once he knew he was lacking aspects of it, he wanted to know it right then. DD believed that the Whole Truth was too much for Harry, was simply too much, a burden he could not have taken on and still pushed forward. Who was right? Who was *in* the right? Was DD correct about what Harry could handle? Was Harry right to pursue the *whole* truth? Was DD simply manifesting, again, his lust for power & control in getting to be the one who determined who got what and how much? IOW, was DD right or was he giving into his weakness for power in hanging onto the truth he should rightfully have handed over in its entirety? Carol has talked about Harry's quest for the truth in terms of his also being a Seeker. I admit that, although I am one who can see Harry rather as Everyman on his Christian Journey (and, thus, *that* kind of a Seeker), I haven't seen this particular final-book searching & grasping for the truth in a Christian sense. I do like the parallel to his being a Quidditch Seeker, though. I like thinking about Harry in terms of his skill & perseverance as a Quidditch Seeker paralleled in this seeking for the Whole Truth about Voldemort, the Prophecy, his mission and their destinies ? but I see it as more of a pragmatic seeking, if that makes sense, rather than any kind of Christian seeking of God's will or whatever. In a way, I guess I see Harry's seeking for the whole truth as a personal seeking ? some might call it even a selfish seeking, a personal quest, while others might call it a sort of self-actualizing seeking or as a means of more fully understanding what it is he `needs' to do in order to make this more his OWN decision to do. I wanted to look back through DH to find all the places I could where references to this quest for truth came in. Bear with me, if you're interested in this. Probably move on right now if you're not. ;) This will take awhile. *************************************** "Could DD have let such things happen? ...Harry thought of Godric's Hollow, of graves DD had never mentioned there; he thought of mysterious objects left without explanation in Dumbledore's will, and a resentment swelled in the darkness. Why hadn't DD told him? Why hadn't he explained? Had DD actually cared about Harry at all? Or had Harry been nothing more than a tool to be polished and honed, but not trusted, never confided in?" [DH, US hardback, p. 177] ************************************** Wow. For me, these are The Big Questions. Why did DD withhold some of these things? Why hadn't he shared more? Why did he once tell Harry (at the end of OotP) that he needed to and would now tell him *everything* and yet, so obviously at this point, ended up telling him much less than everything? Did he keep things from Harry for a good reason? DID he care about Harry? Was caring the motivation for not telling him? Or was being in control, being the one with the power, what was motivating his telling and his not telling? Did he TRUST Harry? ************************************* "It's not just that," Harry said, still avoiding looking at her. "Muriel said stuff about Dumbledore at the wedding. I want to know the truth...." He told Hermione everything that Muriel had told him. When he had finished, Hermione said, "Of course, I can see why that's upset you, Harry--" "I'm not upset," he lied, "I'd just like to know whether or not it's true or--" "Harry, do you really think you'll get the truth from a malicious old woman like Muriel, or from Rita Skeeter? How can you believe them? You knew Dumbledore!" "I thought I did," he muttered. "But you know how much truth there was in everything Rita wrote about you! Doge is right, how can you let these people tarnish your memories of DD?" He looked away, trying not to betray the resentment he felt. There it was again: Choose what to believe. He wanted the truth. Why was everybody so determined that he should not get it? [US, p. 185] **************************************** So who's right here? Usually Hermione is our "voice of reason" when Harry's unreasonable or overreacting. Yet this time it turns out there was truth in Muriel's and Rita Skeeter's words. Is it fair of Harry to feel resentment? Is it fair of him to say everybody's determined he should not get the truth? (I confess I was right with Harry on that one.) ***************************************** "I don't get it, Harry ? do you *like* having this special connection or relationship or what?whatever--" She faltered under the look he gave her as he stood up. "Like it?" he said quietly? "Would *you* like it?" "I?no?I'm sorry, Harry, I didn't mean--" "I hate it, I hate the fact that he can get inside me, that I have to watch him when he's most dangerous. But I'm going to use it." "Dumbledore--" "Forget Dumbledore. This is my choice, nobody else's. I want to know why he's after Gregorovitch." [US, p. 234] ***************************************** Forget Dumbledore. Is that harsh? Is that fair? What *would* DD have thought about Harry's saying, "Forget it ? I WANT TO KNOW"? Would he have been upset, or would he have been pleased? **************************************** Harry's scar was burning now. He thought that there was so much they did not know: Lupin had been right about magic they had never encountered or imagined. Why hadn't DD explained more? Had he thought that there would be time; that he would live for years, for centuries perhaps, like his friend Nicolas Flamel? If so, he had been wrong...." [US, p. 279] *************************************** So why HADN'T DD explained more? He knew all of Harry's 6th year that he (DD) was dying, that his time was almost up, even worked it out with Snape to ensure that that end would come with some degree of control on his part. He did use that time to explain and teach many things. But why didn't he explain more? Why didn't he spend a weekend, say, with Harry, tell him every possible thing he could think of, knowing he would shortly no longer be there? Did Harry not need or deserve to know? *************************************** Some inner uncertainty had crashed down inside him; it was exactly as he had felt after Ron left. He had trusted DD, believed him the embodiment of goodness and wisdom. All was ashes: How much more could he lose? Ron, Dumbledore, the phoenix wand.... [US, p. 360] ************************************** Here we see JKR putting a thought into Harry's mind which mirrors, quite closely, what she herself once said in an interview about DD: that he was the `epitome of goodness.' So what do we make of the fact that Harry is *questioning* that characterization of DD? Was he right to question it? Or is he simply on the way to finding out that, in spite of the questioning, DD really did fit it? Was this the crux of why DD did not tell him the Whole Truth -- because Harry was already saying, "How much more can I lose?," that he would *not* have been able to handle knowing he was also likely going to have to lose his own life? ************************************ "Harry, I'm sorry, but I think the real reason you're so angry is that DD never told you any of this himself." "Maybe I am!" Harry bellowed, and he flung his arms over his head, hardly knowing whether he was trying to hold in his anger or protect himself from the weight of his own disillusionment. "Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk you life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I'm doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!" His voice cracked with the strain.... "He loved you," Hermione whispered. "I know he loved you." Harry dropped his arms. "I don't know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn't love, the mess he's left me in. He shared a damn sight more of what he was really thinking with Gellert Grindelwald than he ever shared with me." ... He closed his eyes at [Hermione's] touch, and hated himself for wishing that what she said was true: that DD had really cared. [US, p. 362] ******************************************* Is Harry right?? Was what DD asked of him, while simultaneously leaving him *without* the whole truth, unfair? Was it something different than ? something less than ? love? Or is Hermione right? Does Harry deserve that Whole Truth? And now I turn to a portion of the book which Jen recently highlighted: the discovery of the truth about the Hallows. ****************************************** Harry understood and yet did not understand. His instinct was telling him one thing, his brain quite another. The DD in Harry's head smiled, surveying Harry over the tips of his fingers, pressed together as if in prayer. You gave Ron the Deluminator. You understood him.... You gave him a way back.... And you understood Wormtail too.... You knew there was a bit of regret there, somewhere.... And if you knew them... What did you know about me, DD? Am I meant to know, but not to seek? Did you know how hard I'd find that? Is that why you made it this difficult? So I'd have time to work that out? [p. 484] ********************************************* Meant to know and not to seek. Is this it? Did DD know how Harry would be tempted? Did he know enough to know Harry needed *time* in order to be able to know but not seek? Was it just luck, chance, happenstance? We don't get answers to Harry's musings and yet the juxtaposition of those things DD *did* know about Ron & Wormtail are we supposed to assume, as Harry is assuming, that DD did know all of this? Does this get DD off the hook for not telling Harry everything? Is it true that Harry was NOT ready for the Whole Truth before? Still... there's that revelation about Harry having to die that's still coming.... And there is more to learn, to cause doubt.... ********************************************** "I can't leave," said Harry. "I've got a job--" "Give it to someone else!" [said Aberforth] "I can't. It's got to be me, Dumbledore explained it all--" "Oh, did he now? And did he tell you everything, was he honest with you?" Harry wanted with all his heart to say "Yes," but somehow the simple word would not rise to his lips. Aberforth seemed to know what he was thinking. "I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother's knee. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus he was a natural." ... Harry kept quiet. He did not want to express the doubts and uncertainties about DD that had riddled him for months now. He had made his choice while he dug Dobby's grave, he had decided to continue along the winding, dangerous path indicated for him by Albus Dumbledore, to accept that he had not been told everything he wanted to know, but simply to trust. He had no desire to doubt again; he did not want to hear anything that would deflect him from his purpose.... "Professor DD cared about Harry, very much," said Hermione in a low voice. "Did he now?" said Aberforth. "Funny thing, how many of the people my brother cared about very much ended up in a worse state than if he'd left `em well alone." [pp. 562-3] ********************************************** So Harry had made his choice, he didn't want to hear anything to bring back those doubts. He had decided to *accept that he had not been told everything he wanted to know, but simply to trust.* Is this the key? Is this what Harry was *meant* to do? Was it the `right answer?' Or was he supposed to listen to Aberforth, was he supposed to continue to challenge for his right to know all? At the end of Aberforth's stories ? about Ariana, about Grindelwald ? this occurs: ****************************************** "How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn't more interested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure you aren't dispensable, just like my little sister?" A shard of ice seemed to pierce Harry's heart. "I don't believe it. DD loved Harry," said Hermione. [Why is it always *Hermione* insisting this??] "Why didn't he tell him to hide, then?" shot back Aberforth. "Why didn't he say to him, `Take care of yourself, here's how to survive'?" "Because," said Harry before Hermione could answer, "sometimes you've *got* to think about more than your own safety! Sometimes you've *got* to think about the greater good! This is war!" "You're seventeen, boy!" "I'm of age, and I'm going to keep fighting even if you've given up!" ... "I don't say I like it, but it's the truth!" "No, it isn't," said Harry. "Your brother knew how to finish You- Know-Who and passed the knowledge on to me. I'm going to keep going until I succeed?or I die. Don't think I don't know how this might end. I've known it for years." [US, pp. 568-9] ******************************************** Okay, if Harry is of age, why didn't Albus give him the FULL truth? Harry claims to have known for years how this might end... but what he doesn't know is that DD believed he knew not just how it *might* end in Harry's death but that it *would* end in Harry's death. So why didn't he give that to Harry? Why didn't he trust him with that? Even *with* this declaration to Aberforth, Harry's not done with his doubts! Soon, Neville, Seamus & the others want information. Harry is disinclined to tell them. But suddenly... ********************************************** "Dumbledore had warned him against telling anyone but Ron and Hermione about the Horcruxes. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus... he was a natural.... Was he turning into DD, keeping his secrets clutched to his chest, afraid to trust? But DD had trusted Snape, and where had that led? To murder at the top of the highest tower.... [p. 583] ********************************************** ... and he decides to NOT be like DD; he decides to NOT keep the secret, but to share with the DA members. Was that the right choice? Was Harry right to characterize DD's secret-keeping as a lack of trust? After all, Harry's still *wrong* about the trust in Snape and what it led to! Is this a way of showing that DD really did know what was best -- when it was best to reveal & when to not? So let us turn to Snape. (As all things must, ha!) ****************************************** "The Dark Lord will return, and Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does." There was a long pause, and slowly Snape regained control of himself, mastered his own breathing. At last he said, "Very well. Very well. But never?never tell, Dumbledore! This must be between us! Swear it! I cannot bear especially Potter's son I want your word!" "My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?" DD sighed, looking down into Snape's ferocious, anguished face. "If you insist..." [p. 679] ******************************************* Here DD keeps a secret, hides the truth, because he is asked to, because he vows to! However, more on Snape.... ****************************************** "If you don't mind dying," said Snape roughly, "why not let Draco do it?" "That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said DD. "I would not have it ripped apart on my account." "And my soul, DD? Mine?" [p. 683] ***************************************** True, they go on to discuss whether, in fact, an act of mercy will actually harm his soul, but this all on the heels of DD's encounter with the ring, with the temptation of too much power.... It invites, for me anyway, the old questions about how much DD toys with being "The One with the Power" and how much he is the "embodiment of goodness and wisdom." And we're still not done with Snape. ***************************************** "Information," repeated Snape. "You trust him... you do not trust me." "It is not a question of trust. I have, as we both know, limited time. It is essential that I give the boy enough information for him to do what he needs to do." "And why may I not have the same information?" "I prefer not to put all of my secrets in one basket, particularly not a basket that spends so much time dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort." "Which I do on your orders!" "And you do it extremely well. Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you." "Yet you confide much more in a boy who is incapable of Occlumency, whose magic is mediocre, and who has a direct connection into the Dark Lord's mind!" ... "You refuse to tell me everything, yet you expect that small service of me!" snarled Snape, and real anger flared in the thin face now. "You take a great deal for granted, Dumbledore!" ... "Harry must not know, not until the last moment, not until it is necessary, otherwise how could he have the strength to do what must be done?" "But what must he do?" "That is between Harry and me. Now listen closely, Severus. There will come a time?after my death--" [and he tells of a time when Voldemort will be keeping Nagini closely by his side] "...then, I think, it will be safe to tell Harry." "Tell him what?" DD took a deep breath and closed his eyes. "Tell him that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon LV, and a fragment of V's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of LV lives inside Harry... And while that fragment of soul, unmissed by V, remains attached to and protected by Harry, LV cannot die." ... "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape quite calmly. "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential." Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought... all these years... that we were protecting him for her. For Lily." "We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said DD, his eyes still tight shut. "Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth: Sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort." DD opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood up. "You have used me." "Meaning?" "I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--" [pp. 684-687] **************************************** Here, of course, is the crux of my difficulty with DD and with Harry's search for the Whole Truth. I do notice a certain resemblance between Snape & Harry complaining, at the start of this segment. ;) But seriously, DD says that they will need to give Harry ENOUGH information "for him to do what he needs to do," *not* that they will need to give him ALL the information. In this ? as well as in what he does and does not tell Snape -- *DD* gets to parse out the goods as HE sees fit. Is this right? Is this justified? Is this DD's ongoing struggle with power and control? Or is he right that, else "how could he have the strength to do what he needs to do?" Was DD using Snape? Was DD using Harry? Did he raise Harry like a pig for slaughter? Or was it simply that he KNEW all, that he KNEW what had to happen and he was helping it to happen? Where are we coming down, here, on that issue of DD as "the embodiment of goodness and wisdom"? And the biggest question of all, for me: Is DD *right* that Harry would not have had that strength to do what he needs to do? In my gut, I tend to think that Harry would have had that strength. It's true that, when he DID learn it, when he did realize that it wasn't just the *chance* of death he faced but a "certainty" of death, it *was* hard for him to go on. His heart pounded in his chest. He was afraid. And yet, even with little time to take it all in, he made that choice, that choice most of us have known he WOULD be able to make. Why with all that DD did know (about Harry and about others, like Ron & Hermione)... why did he doubt that Harry, suspect that with earlier knowledge of the Whole Truth, he would be unable to have the strength to do what he needed to do? Personally, I doubt that, had Harry found out that Whole Truth ? that truth that DD suspected Harry would need to die, too ? that he would have balked, at least in the long run. I don't think he would have! He might have wrestled with it, long and hard, but would he have walked away, run away, gone into hiding, said, "F--- this! It's my life and I'm saving it!"? I don't believe it. So why did DD wait? Why did he keep it from him? Did Harry have a right to it? Or was DD correct and Harry and I wrong on this one? ************************************* "Harry!" Neville looked suddenly scared. "Harry, you're not thinking of handing yourself over?" "No," Harry lied easily. "'Course not... this is something else. But I might be out of sight for a while." ... But he pulled himself together again: This was crucial, he must be like DD, keep a cool head, make sure there were backups, others to carry on. ... He wanted to shout out to the night, he wanted Ginny to know that he was there, he wanted her to know where he was going. He wanted to be stopped, to be dragged back, to be sent back home.... But he *was* home. Hogwarts was the first and best home he had known. He and Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, had all found home here.... Ginny was kneeling beside the injured girl now, holding her hand. With a huge effort Harry forced himself on. ... At the same time he thought that he would not be able to go on, and knew that he must. The long game was ended, the Snitch had been caught, it was time to leave the air...." [pp. 696-698] ********************************************** Here we are. The Seeker has caught the Snitch ? he has the Whole Truth ? and he moves on with it in the way he knew that he should and must. He chose the hard choice. Is this the way his Seeking the Truth should have played out? Was he entitled to have known earlier? Or was this what had to happen? Was Dumbledore right all along, that Harry wouldn't have been able to bear the burden earlier? Was it, in fact, that DD kept it from Harry because he guessed ? GUESSED but did not KNOW ? that Harry would actually *survive?* Was that why he kept the truth from him? Or is it actually the case that Harry never truly did get that Whole Truth until *this* moment ? in King's Cross?after it was all over? When DD said, "You had accepted, even embraced, the possibility of death, something Lord Voldemort has never been able to do. Your courage won, your wand overpowered him" [p. 711], was that the key? Did DD have to tell Harry 99% of the truth but retain that other 1% that he also knew, because Harry *had* to believe that he would die, rather than that he *could* die, in order for it all to work? I wish I knew. Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping for some insights from you all! From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 23:30:22 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:30:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore - Nature of People In-Reply-To: <47055EA9.6090201@btopenworld.com> References: <47055EA9.6090201@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0710051630l2c302213t11deb17a4e9f6ccb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177754 Ceridwen: This is where I thought Rowling was going with the Slytherin thread. Sure, Slytherins are outright bigots more than we were shown of the other houses. But it's bigotry as well to see someone sorted into Slytherin and think, yeah, they're bad. That's a subtler form of bigotry, but it can be just as devastating to the Slytherins if someone with that attitude was in a position to affect their lives. Slytherins aren't uniformly rich, Snape proved that. A Gryffindor personnel director in a position to hire people with an anti- Slytherin bias would perhaps prefer "anyone but a Slytherin." It isn't based on race, or on class, or on birth status, just on Hogwarts house. It's still a prejudiced -ism. Debbie: One obstacle to seeing the treatment of Slytherin as bigotry is that, at least during the era portrayed in the books, Slytherins behave with far too much swagger to suggest victimization. If anything, they have a supriority complex -- the Blacks thought they were practically nobility. Sometimes Draco's taunting reminds me of the (probably apochryphal) Ivy League football cheer ("That's alright! That's okay! You're going to work for us someday!") lizzyben: But here, only Slyths are ever bigoted, no one else? The way the entire WW seems to view Muggles as inferior or people to be persecuted/rescued is actually a much better example of systemic bigotry, but that is of course left unaddressed as the trait of bigotry is swept into the house of bad. Debbie: I read the text as acknowledging that all people are bigoted (Ernie MacMillan huffs and puffs about his pure bloodlines), but only Slytherins exist in a subculture where expressing bigotry is permitted. However, it still exists, and thus when the Slytherins take control, what was theretofore simmering beneath the surface becomes accepted practice, even when ordinary citizens know that some of the justifications ( e.g., muggleborns stealing magic) are patently untrue. Gryffindors have their own forms of bigotry, which remain unaddressed in the series, but I don't see the treatment of Slytherins as bigotry. The Gryffindors do not generally share the one form of bigotry that *is* addressed in the books, muggleborn prejudice, and the dislike of Slytherin certainly has a basis in the fact that the Slytherins not only are prejudiced against muggleborns, but that they espouse it openly. The Sorting Hat tells them overtly that Salazar Slytherin didn't trust muggleborns and wouldn't teach them. Magpie: For some of us that truth always seemed to keep peeking out at the seams, though, and that's why we thought there would be a climax that depended on big self-realization on the good side. So at the end rather than saying, "Oh, they won because they beat Voldemort and the good guys are in charge so racism got dealt a great blow even if it isn't completely gone!" we said, "Huh. So I guess they're not going to deal with the whole bigotry thing and everything else the Slytherins represent at all. What a weird story that says absolutely nothing about bigotry." Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, just not things I really think are true or challenging. Debbie: The ugly "truth" about Slytherin was always there, though, and the Sorting Hat was the agent that made it that way. I always thought this was one of the basic fault lines of the books, though, rather than something that JKR was going to fix in DH. I found an old post of mine (2003, before OOP was published) that blamed the sorting hat, for the same reasons we're discussing now. In fact, the Sorting Hat does not really do what it says. Instead, it reinforces and reenacts the Founders' split every year when it sorts 11-year-olds. The Hat claims to decide based on the observed characteristics it sees when it penetrates each student's brain. But it doesn't really do that, even though (as we saw with Harry's sorting) it does its investigation and presents the student with its findings. However, it then allows 11-year-olds to choose. But we now know that they often have little real understanding of what the houses really represent (especially houses other than the ones their own families belonged to), but with very certain ideas of where their families expect them to end up. (The songs provide little clue, and are only marginally consistent from year to year.) No wonder legacies are so popular, and no wonder they are rejected by the rebellious at heart. Thus, the Hat simply reinforces what a child has learned at home. According to JKR, she set this up as a choice that tells us who a person really is, but only a child with good instincts and/or accurate information is going to end up in the right house. Snape appears to have not fully understood the house characteristics, and somehow Wormtail got into Gryffindor despite his utter lack of bravery. Prep0strus: Griffindors cannot be blamed for how they think of Slytherins because they are RIGHT. Slytherins ARE bad and wrong and represent what is wrong. They DO represent prejudice and cruelty. This is not a statement on Griffindors and how they are prone to prejudice and thinking - that would be a different story. In this story, Slytherins represent what is wrong with the world, and the Griffindors and others who fight against that (including even the extraordinarily flawed Slytherins who are only good by virtue of their non-Slytherin qualities but do fight on the side of good) are in the right. They are also flawed, but they are fighting with what JKR perceives as wrong in the world - and that is the ideals of Slytherin, most perfectly represented in Tom Riddle. Debbie: JKR may have intended Slytherin as "Bad" but I don't think she's succeeded. First, she ascribes attributes to Slytherin qualities that are not inherently bad. Ambition is not bad, as JKR implicitly acknowledges by stocking Gryffindor with ambitious characters like the Twins, and Snape's cunning is essential to the defeat of Voldemort. So individual readers who are not evil will identify with Slytherin. The second reason is that, consistent with reality, the residents of the "Good" house are also morally ambiguous. I agree with you that JKR seems to be saying that what is most important is to choose the side of Right in great things; in that case, small transgressions will be forgiven. Moreover, it may not ultimately matter *why* one chooses the side of right; merely choosing it will make you a better person. Witness how Snape's initial decision to do anything that might save Lily expands to the point where he witnesses deaths only of those he cannot save. Another example (at least in my reading) is Sirius, who appears to have chosen Gryffindor at least partly to avoid being in the same house with greasy gits like Snape. lizzyben: It is a lie, because it seems to say that Slytherins aren't really human; or as you put it "they aren't real people." Sure, these children go to school & cry & laugh & have parents who love them, but they aren't human the way you or I are. They're just this sub- human mutation that contains all the bad traits of humanity & none of the good. But that doesn't describe real human beings at ALL. ALL of us are a mixture of good & bad, all are flawed, none are "superior". Debbie: This would work if, as JKR appears to have intended, all of Slytherin had been caricatures, such as the Carrows or even Crabbe and Goyle. The last reason that it doesn't work is that there are too many sympathetic Slytherins. Characters such as Draco, Regulus and especially Snape are much more than cartoon villains, and are they not uniformly evil, notwithstanding that they may have held offensive views and acted on those views. JKR may have tried to depict Slytherin as a gang of thugs led by a bigoted quasi-aristocracy that lent the house a veneer of respectibility, but that she failed miserably. Draco falls flat as a thug, and so does Lucius. Narcissa, despite the snobbish looks she gives when first introduced to the reader, is actually a loving parent. Despite their cruelty, I sympathize with them, and apparently I wasn't supposed to. Though perhaps the reason that I'm satisfied with Draco's actions in DH is that until the end of DH I believed he was virtually irredeemable. What he actually did was much more than I expected, and I thought it was realistic in the context of his earlier mindset about the DEs and his historic relationship with the Trio. All of them accomplish something good in spite of the fact that they were condemned to the supposedly *bad* house. Irene: Even JKR's greatest sin, treason, is actually not such a sin if you are a Gryffindor. Hagrid betrayed the Order in book 1, and no one batted a lid. In book 7, when Harry wonders whether Hagrid betrayed the Order again in another fit of drunken behaviour, he actually forgives him in his mind *before* they learn it's Mundungus. The only thing JKR tries to take to the bad direction, other than ambition, is the unthinking intellect. She is very suspicious of excessive intellect, LOL. Ravenclaw is the second worst house, and Hermione's saving grace is that she has denounced intellect in book 1. Debbie: There's no question that it's not just Harry who has a limited POV; based on her interview comments, JKR herself has obviously taken to heart Hermione's comment in PS/SS that she's heard Gryffindor is the best. Therefore she subverts the Sorting Hat to engineer the admission into that house of all the characters she needs to help Harry defeat Voldemort. Magpie: But there seems to be something in the way good and bad are presented sometimes in this series that always makes flipping them seem logical, maybe because the root of the problem always seems to be in the opposite place than the series tells me it is. I just can't not keep seeing my quasi-Jungian interpretation, where Slytherin is basically a projection of Gryffindor's Shadow, so Slytherin *is* Gryffindor and vice versa. Debbie: I'll see your quasi-Jungian shadow, and raise it two. The entire series is presented through a Gryffindor filter, so that *all* of the other Houses appear as shadow houses. Harry was considered for Slytherin. Hermione was considered for Ravenclaw. But upon request, both got their first choice. (One suspects that Neville was considered for Hufflepuff.) See, it's the Sorting Hat's fault! Irene: The book that should have been invites that sort of introspection. But the book that actually happened requires nothing of the sort. Why would a child (or teenager, or adult) try to examine his conscience? It's other people that do evil things, and they are easily distinguishable. We, the good ones, the ones that identify with Gryffindor, will never be touched by evil. Debbie: But they are touched by evil. Isn't that what we're getting at when we criticize Harry's use of Crucio? That was wrong, we know it was wrong, and we know Harry knew it was wrong. No one is perfect, or even almost perfect. Dumbledore suffered all his life for his flirtation with evil, and he never overcomes his arrogance or his penchant for secrecy. Such is Dumbledore's tragedy. Montavilla47: And yes, Dumbledore's aims are good. Who could argue (reasonably) against tolerance and inclusion? Who wouldn't support the idea of helping werewolves assimilate into society? Sending embassies to giants and so forth. Who but the basest bigot would balk at treating Muggleborns with respect? What bugs me about Dumbledore is, I suppose, his utter lack of humility and that he does talk as though he's taking responsibility when he really isn't. Debbie: For years this list has been chock full of posters utterly convinced that Snape was working for the side of Good even though he was a greasy bullying abusive git. I find it rather refreshing to know that even though "Dumbledore was working tirelessly against You-Know-Who" that he was a cold arrogant secretive bastard who thought caring for another human being was a weakness and whose flaws nearly ruined everything. Yup, treat everyone with respect. And an iron curtain of emotional distance. Debbie whose views are probably completely contradictory but can't decide whether to blame the books or the Sorting Hat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 01:05:08 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:05:08 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177755 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > wrote: > > (They seem to totally ENJOY being this scapegoat as well. The way they're seen by others is exactly the way they are. If Slytherins were real people I would absolutely suspect that I wasn't getting the real story, but they're not real. They're entirely made up to be exactly this. Why would anyone want to be in Slytherin? It's a mystery to me. Don't ask me to fathom how a Slytherin's mind works.) Stepha67: It goes in the other direction as well: when Snape meets James and Sirius on the Hogwarts Express, his distaste for them, due to their behavior, turned him off to Gryffindor. Of course he seemed to be more inclined to want to join Slytherin even before that, but the incident on the train solidified his opinion of Gryffindors. He wondered to Lily why anyone would want to be in Gryffindor. To me the Slytherins are portrayed as pretentious, superior jerks rather than inherently bigoted, in the sense that they think Slytherin House is the best house and all the others are lame. Kind of the way people feel about their university, if they're at a Big 10 or Pac 10 school. Yes, some of them are bigoted, maybe even most of them, but those seem to be mostly the Voldemort supporters, or people who like his ideas but aren't necessarily on board with him. The DEs, on the other hand are all bigoted. I don't consider Slytherins to be automatically DE/Voldie supporters. For example, we don't ever hear anything about Blaise Zabini supporting Voldemort. Jen wrote: "Families who believed like Slytherin continued this tradition. The Gaunts and Blacks were two such families, one choosing to inbreed in order to remain pure-blood and therefore superior in their minds, and the Blacks, choosing to say others who 'diseased' the family bloodline didn't exist anymore and weren't part of the family. These families identified heavily with Salazar Slytherin and/or Slytherin house, and when Dumbledore became headmaster, he was viewed as a particular enemy because he was seen as a champion for rights of those with impure blood." Stepha67: Absolutely, but not all Slytherins were purebloods, like Voldemort himself, or Snape. I take the pureblood mania to be more of a Voldemort thing rather than a Slytherin thing. Sometimes the two connected, especially with the Malfoys. As for the pureblood/DE hatred of mudbloods, I'd like to note the hatred they also hold for those they call "blood traitors," people like the Weasleys who are pureblood but who don't believe they are superior to mudbloods. Bellatrix voices this view when she tells Ron, after she has decided to torture Hermione for information, that if Hermione dies she'll be moving on to him next since she considers blood traitors to be just as bad as mudbloods. In the beginning of DH, Voldemort embarrasses Bellatrix and the Malfoys by "congratulating" them on Tonks's marriage to Lupin: it's embarrassing since Tonks is not only a half-blood but now also married to an outcast. Draco's made similar comments about blood traitors (although I can't seem to locate them at the moment), and for him (as well as the Malfoys in general), the Weasleys have committed the additional sin of being poor. But that's another issue all together. From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 01:13:18 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:13:18 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177756 > And Mus notes: > > This is a world where house-elves like being enslaved (and that is the resolution of their story), so perhaps it is no surprise to find that the invented Slytherin mind works thus. > Stepha67 wrote: This is one issue in the story that was never really resolved for me. Clearly Dobby was happy to be freed, but he seemed to be in the minority. Other house elves seemed to have taken the stance that it was somehow dishonorable to have been freed (read fired), but is that because that's what they really believe, or has the situation been thus for so long that the house elves don't really know what they actually want? In other words, do they want to remain slaves because it's the only condition they've known, or do they actually prefer that life of their own free will? Hermione, having been raised by Muggles, is really expressing our own horror with slavery and that the wizarding world allows it, while Ron is not horrified because it's always been that way. Who is right? I also found it interesting that it wasn't Ron asserting that the house elves should be freed, but that it wasn't right to order them to die for the anti-Voldie forces which earned him the kiss from Hermione. He's now treating them with respect, while she has seemingly backed off on her commitment to freeing them. In fact, the whole time they were hiding out at 12 GP she didn't try to free Kreacher even once, as I recall. This is really a tough one because I'm not actually sure what JKR was trying to say with this. On the one hand, Dobby was happy to be freed; but Kreacher likely would not have wanted to be freed, he was just looking for his masters to treat him with respect. Hmmmm. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 02:23:49 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:23:49 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177757 > Ceridwen: > The thing is, bigotry, racism or any other -ism, isn't always so > obvious. If it was, it would be much easier to identify and deal > with, given that people actually want to deal with it. Calling > someone a name based on ethnicity or culture or looks or social > status or class or birth or disability is a clear signal that > something isn't right. It's those little things, the ones we > wouldn't notice unless they were called to our attention, that is > bigotry at its deepest and most stubborn level. Something obvious > can be cut out like deadheading flowers from a plant. Finding out > why the stems are rotting and the leaves are going bad is harder and > takes some expertise, both to identify the cause and to fix it. Alla: Well, yeah, I know. Bigotry is not always obvious and all those things and many many other things can be the sign of bigotry on the deeper level. What I was trying to say originally and I guess was not expressing well that I guess Gryffindors do not have it in themselves to do the most obvious type of bigotry, the one who leads to killing, etc. I still think so, so yeah I think on that level they are better. Does not mean that they are GOOD and fully free of all sorts of bigotry. Obviously Harry indeed happy to take sandwich from Kreacher, which is not the resolution of the House elves I expected either, but I think Pippin's explanation makes a whole lot of sense. Voldemort did not start House elves enslavement, so it does not necessarily ends with his end ( Voldemort I mean) In the RW, well, to me bigotry is when we do things consciously, if you are aware of something that you are doing discriminates against anybody, that is bigotry to me. If something that you are doing UNKNOWINGLY discriminates against other people, that is just ignorance to me. If you are made aware of this and do not change your ways, then you are a bigot, but not before that IMO anyways So, yeah, of course there are things that are bigoted and left open in WW, I just do not find them in any way comparable with the bigotry of Slytherins against muggleborns. For a very simple reason - I do not see anybody wanting them dead. Which does not mean that it is not bigotry, just that it is not as serious to me. Ugh, I mean, serious, just less serious by comparison. And another thing again - ignorance, I think Hermione will make sure that WW for example will learn more and more about house elves, goblins, etc. Speculating obviously, but I want to believe that education may work wonders towards making bigotry dissappear. Ceridwen: This is where I thought Rowling was going with the Slytherin thread. Sure, Slytherins are outright bigots more than we were shown of the other houses. But it's bigotry as well to see someone sorted into Slytherin and think, yeah, they're bad. That's a subtler form of bigotry, but it can be just as devastating to the Slytherins if someone with that attitude was in a position to affect their lives. Slytherins aren't uniformly rich, Snape proved that. A Gryffindor personnel director in a position to hire people with an anti- Slytherin bias would perhaps prefer "anyone but a Slytherin." It isn't based on race, or on class, or on birth status, just on Hogwarts house. It's still a prejudiced -ism. Alla: Yes, indeed it is bigotry to say in RL that everybody in Slytherin is bad. I would also say that it would be bigotry in the Potterverse for somebody who just came into that world to say that. But is it bigotry to think that everybody in Slytherin house supports pureblood ideology at least at some point of their life? Um, I do not think so at all. I think it is the **truth** as shown. I mean, it is not truth that everybody stays purebloodism and DE supporter, we shown that it is not, but based on what I know, I do not think that I am showing bigotry, subtler or not if I say that Slytherin students that I **know**, support it. They can all be nice, wonderful, loving their families, but they all as far as I know supported the "muggleborns are creatures of lower standing" crap. Even that episodic guy who substitutes for Draco in HBP uses M word. I think it was done for a reason. I mean, it is magical universe, I think it is not hard for me to believe that Sorting Hat indeed looks in the heart of the child and knows where he or she stands. IMO of course. Does not mean that they cannot change obviously and we see plenty of those who did, but yeah, not a bigotry as far as I am concerned. And I again think I want to agree with Pippin. I think it is very telling that stories of many Slytherins went UP IMO in DH and many Gryffindors down. I mean I liked Regulus, I did, but I simply love him now and we discovered things about DD and I love Harry but he did use Unforgiveables, etc. I think JKR showed a lot of change with Slyths, hehe, even if not with the house, just individuals. JMO, Alla From ekrdg at verizon.net Sat Oct 6 02:50:19 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:50:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters References: Message-ID: <005901c807c3$b17c9c50$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 177758 ------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4, The Seven Potters The chapter begins the moment the Dursleys have left. Harry gathers Hedwig's cage, his Firebolt and his rucksack to wait for his escort. He thinks about the times he had been left alone in the past. He remembers sneaking food from the fridge, playing on Dudley's computer, watching television. "It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Harry is very pensive in this chapter. Hedwig is ignoring him as he walks around the house, reminiscing about things that happened in the past. He looks at the front door and remarks on Dudley's throwing up on the mat, and Dumbledore's visit last year. Harry shows Hedwig where he used to sleep and recalls the dream about a flying motorcycle. At that moment he hears a sudden deafening roar. His escort has arrived. The party consists of Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Mad-Eye, Fred, George, Bill, Fleur, Arthur, Tonks, Lupin, Kingsley, and Mundungus. There is a brief moment of chatter. We learn that Tonks and Remus are married. Mad-Eye gets right to the briefing. Pius Thicknesse has gone over. He had made it an imprisonable offense to connect this house to the Floo Network, place a Portkey or to use Apparition at the house. Moody feels it does nothing to protect Harry, but is designed to prevent the Order from taking him. Harry learns about the Trace, a charm that detects magical activity around under-aged wizards. The Ministry will know if a spell is cast near Harry. Therefore, Voldemort would know too. Lily's protection will break as soon as Harry turns 17 or as soon as he no longer calls Privet Drive home. A false lead has been set that Harry will be moved on July 30. However, Moody expects Death Eaters are watching the area. Twelve houses with some connection to the Order have been enchanted with protective spells, so that the Death Eaters won't be able to determine where Harry is being taken. Seven Potters each with an escort will fly to different safe houses, then Portkey to the Burrow. The specific houses mentioned are Moody's, Kingsley's, Tonks's parents', and Molly's Auntie Muriel's. Harry realizes that 6 of his friends plan to drink Polyjuice Potion to turn into him. He protests. Hermione says she told them he would react this way. Ron, Fred and George use humor to counter him. Moody threatens to use force and states that everyone is overage and all prepared to take the risk. Mundungus doesn't appear to be as willing. Moody says that the Death Eaters will be attempting to kill the guards, but to capture Harry. Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, Fleur and Mundungus drink Polyjuice Potion. The twins make a joke about being identical, though Fred thinks he's better looking. A few moments later Fred pretends to be George. Fleur thinks she looks hideous; Hermione comments on Harry's poor eyesight; Ron remarks that he knew there wasn't a tattoo. Most of them need to change into different robes. Harry is discomforted by the whole procedure and feels more modesty about his variously exposed bodies than the fakes do. Moody assigns the pairs: Moody/Mundungus, Arthur/Fred, Remus/George, Tonks/Ron on brooms; Bill/Fleur, Kingsley/Hermione on thestrals; and Harry is riding with Hagrid in a sidecar attached to Sirius's motorcycle. Moody chose the bike for Harry because he thinks the Death Eaters will expect Harry to be on a broom. He believes Snape will have told Voldemort everything about Harry. Hagrid recalls how small Harry had been the last time they rode it. Harry is embarrassed and feels like a child compared to the others. As soon as they are airborne they are surrounded by about 30 Death Eaters. Immediately Harry loses his Firebolt. Seconds later Hedwig is killed. Harry sees his companions under attack and calls for Hagrid to go back. Hagrid bellows, "My job's ter get you there safe, Harry!" Four Death Eaters are following Harry and Hagrid. Harry counters their attacks with Stunning Spells. The bike shoots out a brick wall, a net, and a burst of dragon fire. The sidecar is wrenched loose of the motorbike and starts to fall. Harry keeps it airborne until Hagrid swoops down and pulls him onto the bike. Harry casts a "Confringo" causing the sidecar to explode. By now there are only two Death Eaters in pursuit. Harry recognizes a blank-faced Stan Shunpike. Harry casts an "Expelliarmus" which reveals him as the real Harry Potter. The Death Eaters fly away. For a frightening few moments the bike is not pursued. Harry turns forward and urges Hagrid to go faster. Suddenly Voldemort appears. He is "flying like smoke in the wind" without a broom. Hagrid bellows in fear and flies into a vertical dive. Harry is firing at random. He hits one Death Eater, who falls. The bike is hit and spirals out of control. Another Death Eater flies near and Hagrid leaps off the bike to attack him. Voldemort closes in on Harry and begins the words, "Avada---" but Harry's wand shoots gold fire and breaks the wand in Voldemort's hand. Harry tries an "Accio Hagrid," but the bike speeds downward. Voldemort calls to the remaining Death Eater, "Your wand, Selwyn, give me your wand!" Just as Harry expects to be cursed, Voldemort vanishes. Harry sees Hagrid, spread-eagled on the ground, then crashes into a muddy pond nearby. Questions 1. There is a great deal of reflection in the beginning of the chapter, with some plot arcs coming full circle. How do the memories and events around Sirius's bike in this adventure compare with the events from SS/PS? Did any other of Harry's musings resonate with you? It was so poignant, when he started walking back through the house and he visited the cupboard where he used to sleep. It was emotional for me. There were so many points in this story where she referenced things from previous books, the cupboard, things in his trunk from prior books, etc. That was one of my favorite literary affects, seeing all those things and having her summarize the books as well as tell book 7's story. I mentioned in another answer Sirius' bike and about Harry arriving and leaving Privet drive in the same way. 2. Can you explain what Harry's feeling in this quote? "It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times; it was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Does anyone remember how a very similar line was used before? Bonus points if you can find it. Knowing that he would never come back, I'm thinking he was feeling nostalgic. He knew that he was starting a new chapter of his life, whatever it may be. Embarking on the new has a way of making you reflect on the past. I think the odd, empty feeling was just that.... empty. For the most part, when we look back at the last 10 years of our lives or are moving, leaving a job/school, etc. we look back with fond memories. Harry had no fond, loving, happy memories so for him it was an odd and empty moment. This reminds me of when he found out about Tom Riddle in book 2. There's a line something to the affect of Tom Riddle being a friend he used to have but couldn't remember. Something like that... LOL 3. Were you surprised by any of the team members--either at their inclusion or behavior? Why do you think Moody made the team this way? Why did JKR set it up like this? I was surprised at who was making up the other Potters. I thought they'd have fully qualified wizards, not Harry's mates. 5. What do you think about Tonks's parents and Molly's Auntie Muriel providing safe houses? Are they Order members? I thought it was odd, unusual. I didn't pause to think about it too much though because I was SO anxious for what was coming !! 7. Immediately after the Firebolt is lost, Hedwig is killed. Harry's attention is on the battle. Did the pacing of the story affect your reaction to Hedwig's death? How did you react to the results of the "Confringo"? Is there a literary reason for Hedwig's death and the loss of the Firebolt? I thought it was indicative of the end of Harry's childhood. Besides his friends, those things were the last things to tie him to his childhood, he was leaving the Dursley's and was of age now. The story was moving so fast and suddenly that I didn't have time to do much more than register that Hedwig was gone. I kept reading. 8. Should Harry have been paired with someone else? I thought it was only right that he leave Privet Drive with Hagrid, on Sirius' motorbike.... that is after all how he arrived there. It was for me, just another full circle from book 1. 9. Did you remember that Voldemort was not using his own wand? What were your thoughts about Harry's wand acting on its own? Seriously, I had to re-read that section in the chapter. As for Harry's wand acting on it's own, I (am embarassed to admit this) thought it was somehow Dumbledore's power channeling through Harry's wand. *G* Kimberly From errolowl at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 03:23:28 2007 From: errolowl at yahoo.com (errolowl) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:23:28 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177759 bboyminn: Now, in the final Duel, several things are coming into play, and in that case, we get a true and total rebound of the Death Curse. Voldemort is no longer protected, so he dies. But what made the final curse rebound? It could be complex or it could be simple. It maybe that Harry simply casting /any curse/ at the moment that Voldemort sends his curse, caused the rebound. That has been demonstrated several times in the series. It could have been Lily's protection. It could have been the Master-of-the-Wand effect. It could be Harry's self-sacrifice. Or, it could be a combination of all or some of these things. We will never know for sure, all we do know it that Harry had many things working for him in that final confrontation,and all or some of them worked. Errol: And lets not forget the Hallows. I'm jumping in here, and this may have already come up, but technically Harry possessed all three hallows and thus was the legendary "master of death" at that point in time. He had the invisibility cloak. Judging by the final outcome, the wand had accepted him as its master. And he had possession of the stone right up to that point. He couldn't be killed if the legend had any truth to it. OTOH, the wise brother in the legend choose to cast aside his protection and go out to meet death as a friend. So I guess you could volunteer to get killed and reject the protection. The point is, I wonder why JKR wrote in so many things that would serve the purpose of protecting Harry. Just one plot device, sufficiently set up would have done. The blood, the wand, the hallows, the sacrifice ... seems like over kill to me. As a side note, when did Harry figure out the possibility that he owned the wand? If he knew in the forest that he probably possessed all three Hallows, that makes his sacrifice all the more laudable. If he figured it out later, it takes away from the whole hallows plot point. I am curious what people think about this. Errol (Who's not at all clear what the point of the Hallows was anyway.) From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Oct 6 03:50:15 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:50:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470705F7.6080100@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177760 Random832: >> Steam (which is invisible) >> rising in any pattern that can be >> said to be characteristic of the >> substance (steam is pure water) >> that it's rising from is impossible >> anyway. Eggplant: > HUH?! Random832: It would be characteristic, perhaps, of the air currents, but not of something about the nature of the substance - that a particular substance makes particular patterns of steam (or rather, again, mist) is already firmly within the realm of "because it's magic". In the physical realm, the composition of the substance isn't going to influence the behavior of any mist coming off it. The temperature would cause it to rise (or fall, as with dry ice) at a different speed, and the air currents in the environment around it would be what have a "characteristic pattern". Now, the helix pattern you sometimes see rising off of ACTUAL hot substances, coffee etc, is because the air around them is rotating as it rises, carrying the visible mist with it. But that is NOT necessarily going to be what a MAGICAL substance does. >> I certainly didn't visualize it rising in a helix. Eggplant: > That my friend I simply do not believe. The word "helix" may not have > sprung to mind but a helix is what you were visualizing. Random832: Don't you DARE presume to tell me what I did or did not visualize! I posted a PICTURE of what I visualized, and it was NOT a helix! what I visualized was emphatically not the path traced by a point that is rotating at a fixed radius about an axis in a plane while travelling along that axis perpendicular to the plane of rotation; it was the path traced by a point that is rotating at a decreasing (or increasing - i actually had it increasing, but the point fixed and the plane rotating, but the end shape is the same) radius around a single point within a plane. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 6 04:25:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:25:10 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177761 > Stepha67: > Absolutely, but not all Slytherins were purebloods, like Voldemort > himself, or Snape. I take the pureblood mania to be more of a > Voldemort thing rather than a Slytherin thing. Sometimes the two > connected, especially with the Malfoys. Jen: It's hard to tell. There was an identification with pure-blood superiority by certain Slytherin families before LV came along, such as the 'Toujours Pur' Black family and Salazar Slytherin's descendants. Was it mania? Maybe not exactly in the sense of purifying the race outside the family, but for the Blacks 'any time the family produced someone halfway decent they were disowned,' (chap. 6, p. 105, UK) so there was a little more than pure-blood pride at work it seems. They did sound like an easy mark for Voldemort when he came along, before they got cold feet: "they were all for the purification of the Wizarding race, getting rid of Muggle- borns and having pure-bloods in charge." (same, p. 104) Celoneth: > Even if Slytherins in JKR's world embody blood racism(though I don't > agree) - there is a prevalent view that muggleborns are inferior - a > view not shared by Slytherins alone. As far as anti-muggle > legislation, how could it have passed w/ only a quarter of the > population in favour and the rest against - regardless of the > political structure of the WW - passing laws opposed to by the rest > of the community does not make for sensible governance. The way I > read the books, is that a lot of people in the WW share the view > that muggleborns are inferior or at the least odd. Even Arthur > Weasley who is described as a huge muggle fan - looks at muggles as > though they're amusing creatures - what could be described as > patronisingly racist in its own way. Slytherins are not alone in > disliking muggleborns, nor is there any indication that hating > muggleborns is a required trait of Slytherin house - Slytherin did > only want purebloods(though we see that half-bloods can get into > Slytherin as well), but never is there a description in the sorting > ceremony that Slytherin wanted only those who hate > muggles/muggleborns in Slytherin house. Jen: I agree with everything you said. It's just that more Slytherins than any other group are depicted as acting on that belief in order to purify the race. Voldemort's influence was paramount to that occurring because he presented himself as Salazar Slytherin's last heir and recruited heavily from his own house (ensuring more Slytherin recruits in the future from children of his first servants). That's the part I find most interesting, what was Slytherin house like before LV? There are hints that even if certain Slytherin families identified with pure-blood superiority, Slytherin was a different house prior to the one at the time the books take place. I'm thinking of how the Marauders and Snape talk about Slytherin on the train, how Slytherin = pure-blood wasn't discussed at all since Snape thought it the house for brainy people. And Slughorn as the long-term Head of Slytherin had his own form of exclusion, but not one based solely on blood status. Another fact I found interesting in DH was Grindelwald wasn't even part of the British WW. I expected him to be from Slytherin, the previous Dark Lord to LV. Magpie: > Yet even when the WW is finally taken over by LV I didn't have a > sense of it--the anti-Muggle-born stuff didn't build on anything > we'd heard from Draco (our mouthpiece for the Pureblood view) and > introduced an entirely new and fantastic (even by WW standards) > idea of a Muggle being able to "steal" a Wizard's magic. Did anyone > really believe that? It sounded like something the MoM came up with > at the last minute because they had to say something. Anti-Muggle- > born or anti-Slytherin prejudice (if one thinks there is such a > thing) is still in-fighting within the same group. These are all > kids who are Wizards and go to Hogwarts. Jen: I think that's exactly what happened, the MOM came up with what would be the most terrifying possibility to a wizard! Or Voldemort came up with it. As you said, magic is everything to most wizards - Magic is Might. I thought Voldemort and his MOM compatriots were remarkably skilled at destabilization in DH. The idea to make Harry Undesirable Number One, possibly DD's murderer, was an incredible stroke to cast doubt on the One they were supposed to be rallying around (as well as Harry having to be on the run and thus looking like he was saving his own skin). Magpie: > In the end, to paraphrase Dan Hemmings, I don't think the fictional > world is used here to explore bigotry much at all, but rather > bigotry is used to explore the world. I know the word "Mudblood" is > bad because it's like calling somebody a racial slur in the real > world, and I relied on the real world to explain why things were > happening in the WW more and more in DH. I don't get it from the > context of the story--it just is. Jen: Hemmings explanation rings true for me because that's how I sub- conciously interpreted the bigotry piece as I read the series. I was surprised by what people saw in DH (and I do understand now from your explanation that it's something seen in the story). My reading experience was entering a world in medias res, with the expectation that what had gone on to bring the world to that point, and what would go on after that point, weren't the real story so much as background to Harry's story. Sometimes I think JKR took on too *much* world building, which led to loose ends. Jen From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Oct 6 02:42:59 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:42:59 -0400 Subject: Marrietta's Scars, was Re: Family and Other Loyalty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177762 It occurs to me that Marietta's being branded visibly with the word SNEAK across her forehead may be not that different than what happens in the real world. Someone who did something like what Marietta did in the real world, if she lived in (say) a small town, might as well have the word branded on her forehead; just because the label is not visible, doesn't mean it is not real. 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 random832 at fastmail.us Sat Oct 6 04:40:51 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:40:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470711D3.2080305@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177763 prep0strus wrote: > Slytherin actually IS worse than Griffindor. It is not a view that > some characters have. In the world JKR has created, Slytherin > represents what is wrong with humanity. It represents intolerance and > selfishness and a proclivity for evil. You may not like Dumbledore, > but JKR does, and most of the time she has him espouse HER views. Random832: Yes, it IS a view that some characters (and some authors) have. The view that being Slytherin - that is, having ambition and/or cunning as a substantial personality trait, is going to automatically MEAN that you are intolerant and selfish and evil. The sorting hat doesn't choose where to put eleven-year-old children based on "intolerance, selfishness, and a proclivity for evil". That JKR has that view doesn't make it any more right. prep0strus: > When Dumbledore says we may have sorted too soon, he's not being > condescending or arrogant. He's saying, Severus, you are brave and > good, and it was unfair that you were sorted into the house of evil > and cruelty. Random832: And _calling slytherin the house of evil and cruelty_ is bigoted when it. It is inexcusable to claim that "ambition and cunning = evil and cruelty" -- that is, that simply having certain personality traits, ones that many people in the real world have, makes you irredeemably evil. --Random83 From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 04:43:14 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:43:14 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177764 >> Jen wrote: >> So the AK killed the soul piece and destroyed the container. But >> because Harry's tethered to LV he can't really die, just as LV >> can't really die; >> >> Tell me if I've muddled you're explanation instead of >> understanding it! zanooda: No, that's exactly what I believe :-). > Mike wrote: > I still think the AK rebounded, but not at full power. That's why > Voldemort got knocked out and experienced his own near-death. I > think Steve postulated this version up-thread. I must have missed this, because lately I have access to the computer only occasionally. I have a problem with the entire concept of some "reduced power AK" though (including Angie's idea about the Elder wand sending a substandard curse to spare it's master ) or the curse rebounding not at full power - I can't even explain why, it's just the feeling that I get from the book. I believe that it's a real AK and that it killed Harry, who was only able to come back because of the shared blood and because he wanted to. > Mike wrote: > The problem I'm having is the whole 'Harry must die as > the "container" of the soul piece' when Harry really didn't die - > Dumbledore said he wasn't dead. I thought DD only said this because Harry had the choice to go back. > Mike: > I believe it was Harry's soul that visited the King's Cross way > station as it was Voldemort's ravaged soul from his body that made > the trip. Right. > Mike: > But neither's body was dead. Well, in my theory LV wasn't dead, because the curse didn't rebound :-). As for Harry, I don't really know what do you mean by saying that his body wasn't dead. In RL, when someone is not breathing and his heart stops - is he dead? If this person is then revived by CPR or a defibrillator - can we say that he was dead but came back to life? It's not all that simple, IMO. I think the entire King's Cross scene took just a few seconds in real time. Harry could be "dead" these few seconds. zanooda, who waves back to Mike, and apologizes if she won't answer his next post, being unable to get to the computer again From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 6 04:55:29 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:55:29 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: <470705F7.6080100@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177765 Random832 wrote: > you DARE presume to tell me what > I did or did not visualize To quote Harry "Yes I dare!" There is another thing I'd change, when Harry dives into the pond for the sword the book says the chain on the Horcrux was blocking his windpipe, but as he was under water already that would seem to make little difference. I would say it was blocking his carotid artery. The carotid brings blood to the brain and if blocked can make someone black out very quickly. Wrestlers call it "the sleeper hold". Eggplant From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 05:53:01 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:53:01 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: <470711D3.2080305@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177766 > > Random832: > And _calling slytherin the house of evil and cruelty_ is bigoted when > it. It is inexcusable to claim that "ambition and cunning = evil and > cruelty" -- that is, that simply having certain personality traits, ones > that many people in the real world have, makes you irredeemably evil. > > --Random83 > Prep0strus: But there's more to it than that. Cunning alone has negative connotations (especially when compared to other possible words - clever, ingenious, creative, quick-witted, street smart, etc.), which was a deliberate choice. And the hat doesn't just say ambitious - it says 'will use any means', which is a much more dangerous and frightening description. And my analysis of the house is not based solely on the hat's descriptions, either. It is based on everything else the author has given me, much of which I've already posted a couple times along this thread - that every Slytherin character shown is evil and/or unpleasant. That every evil deed is performed by a Slytherin (excepting Peter - i forget to except him, because I already did, and i guess i should include Marietta like someone said, but i would NOT include Umbridge - she is unclassified, and in my mind, likely Slytherin). That bigotry and racism are something built into the house. There is more to the house than 'ambition and cunning', and even if that were all there was... there's still a paucity of admirable traits. JKR goes out of her way to show the kind of ambition and kind of cunning she means when she talks about Slytherin. We see those types of qualities used appropriately in other characters. In Slytherin they are twisted and wrong. It's fine, I guess, for you to lump characters, readers, and the author all together as if they all have the same moral grounding. And once JKR has put these books out into the world, people can read them however they want (and we certainly do). But I think it's a little silly to simply dismiss what she meant or was trying to do. My original point, many days and posts ago, was that I felt JKR was using Slytherin to represent what she thought was wrong in the world. And that while some characters in Slytherin have depth and have incurred sympathy, I don't think it rose to the level where we were supposed to think Slytherin was actually equal or good. Therefore, it is not bigoted to look down on Slytherin, because you are only looking down on these wrong ideas. Has she done this very well? I think not. I think there are many flaws. But while I understand people are frustrated with the world she presented, where it appears ok to look down on Slytherins, I think it is wrong to think badly of people who DO look down on Slytherins. I really think that they represent the worst of human nature (especially through JKR's eyes - others might choose different traits as the worst) - racism, bigotry, cruelty, selfishness, arrogance, superiority, moral bankruptcy. To do anything to further themselves, no matter who else it hurts, along with an inbred sense of entitlement and disregard for others. In the end, for me and many others, JKR did not present a world in which Slytherin, as a group, could represent more than those base ideals. And so, yes, I believe they are less, they are lower, they are worse. And I do not feel like a bigot for doing so, because I don't believe the ww is the rw. I believe JKR gave me a world in which a group of people really are bad and wrong and unlikable. I'm not even making a judgment on whether I like that decision or that world. But that is the world I feel was presented to me, and that's where my analysis comes from. Siriusly Snapey Susan: Carol has talked about Harry's quest for the truth in terms of his also being a Seeker. I admit that, although I am one who can see Harry rather as Everyman on his Christian Journey (and, thus, *that* kind of a Seeker), I haven't seen this particular final-book searching & grasping for the truth in a Christian sense. I do like the parallel to his being a Quidditch Seeker, though. Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping for some insights from you all! Prep0strus: Well, I know I don't have all the insights you want. That was a long post, which presents a lot to think about. So this is just the tangent your post put my mind on. A bunch of it was about Dumbledore, and then your mention of Christianity made me think of how some have suggested in the past that Dumbledore represents God. I feel like fewer people think that now, a lot because of all the flaws seen in Dumbledore. Now, the opinion I'm going to present goes against my earlier points regarding Slytherin, in which I took my perception of the author's intent into consideration. Here, I just wonder on my own if Dumbledore could still represent God in some ways. And it can be looked at in a positive or a negative light - some things people wonder about God could also be wondered about Dumbledore, and vice versa. And I hope to say this in such a way that the argument makes sense whether or not you believe in God, or whether or not you think God is good - and the same for Dumbledore. Is not God secretive, manipulative... and yet also loving and good? God does or allows many terrible things to happen, but people accept them on faith that there is something that they don't understand, or is beyond their understanding, but makes sense. But God can demand much of people - sometimes too much. He expects us to do things without our full understanding and arranges things according to his plan, not a consensus plan and not what we think might make us most happy. He does things that can seem horrible, or wrong, but again, we're supposed to accept them on faith. We're supposed to accept that there are things we don't get to learn and yet do our best anyway. Now, I'm not saying Dumbledore is perfect, but misunderstood. But he is a character in a story, and a character in a story can represent something without being that thing in all of its aspects. Is it such a stretch for Dumbledore to represent a demanding, secretive God who still loves us and tries to guide us along our way? Is it so hard to see the negatives qualities present in Dumbledore as also present in God were we to take away our supposed knowledge of his infallibility and perfection? There is bitterness towards Dumbledore in his treatment of Snape, but the stories of Job and Abraham aren't all puppies and cotton candy. And the Christian parallels get pretty heavy (and annoying) if you really delve into them or try to apply them, but say Dumbledore was willing to sacrifice Harry to achieve his goal... this can't be taken as a parallel for God sacrificing his son? Again, it's a story - it's easy to argue how what Harry is doing is nowhere close to what Jesus was doing. But I think as a representation, it's possible. And in that light, perhaps Dumbledore can represent some of the mystery we see in God. Or perhaps it only illuminates the wretched condition of humanity under the thumb of a powerful and manipulative God. Just some thoughts bouncing around my head. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sat Oct 6 05:51:26 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:51:26 -0000 Subject: Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177767 > [snip] > zgirnius: > It seems to me that he gets it. And when the DEs show up immediately > afterwards, Harry makes sure they see him, in the hope that it will > make them go easier on Lovegood than in they believed he had summoned > them on a false alarm. [huge snip] Shaunette: just had to butt in for a moment. I don't have my book in front of me, but I'm really not sure Harry gets the credit for this one. I think it was Hermione's quick thinking, once again. -Shaunette From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 6 09:01:39 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:01:39 -0000 Subject: Slytherins/ Dobby /Slytherins /Loyalty & Traitors /Selwyn /Prestige Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177768 Steve bboyminn wrote in : << The Sorting Hat sees potential, and the potential to be cunning and ambitious is not a negative thing. >> I don't think cunning and ambition define who is Sorted into Slytherin. I know the Sorting Hat SAID those are the criteria, but I don't see it. The young Slytherins we know best are Draco and Crabbe and Goyle and Pansy. Crabbe and Goyle don't seem cunning, nor ambitious for anything except maybe to be valued servants of a big bad guy, and that's two out of four. I'm not sure what trait is shared by all Slytherins. Even 'an attraction to secrecy' doesn't seem to relate to Crabbe and Goyle. 'A desire for power' can relate to Crabbe and Goyle as the physical power to beat people up, to Lucius Malfoy as political power, to Snape as the power of potions. But I don't think it fits well for a person whose ambition is to win a Quidditch championship or the most charming smile contest... << Also, I simply can't believe that /most/ Slytherins don't go on to live perfectly normal lives. It is unreasonable to assume they all go off and become dark wizards and criminals. >> "Dark wizard" and "criminal" are not synonyms. A Dark Wizard can be a law-biding citizen if he uses only legal Dark spells and only for legal purposes. << I suspect more likely they become good businessmen and entrepreneurs. >> I agree with perfectly normal lives, but not that they produce that many more entrepreneurs and successful businesspeople than the other Houses. Hufflepuff hard work and Gryffindor courage are also useful for entrepreneurs. Crabbe and Goyle showed more potential to be bodyguards or bouncers than businessmen. Carol wrote in : << Love takes the form of respect and affection for a house-elf in Regulus's case--note that Kreacher is inspired by him to lead the house-elves in the final segment of the battle. >> Lucius and Narcissa were quite abusive of Dobby, and Dobby said that when the Dark Lord was in power, all House Elves were treated just as badly ("treated like vermin"). Regulus, a follower of the Dark Lord, loved his Kreachur, and Narcissa and Bellatrix treated Kreachur with enough kindness to move him to betray his owner. Was Dobby just *wrong* about how non-Malfoy Dark Wizards treat their House Elves? Not according to Hermione, who said it was perfectly normal for wizards (not just Dark Wizards) to test a poison on a House Elf... << Even Phineas shows love at one point, rushing to 12 GP to search for his great-great-grandson Sirius, refusing to believe that he's dead. >> I thought Phineas Nigellus was anxious about the continuance of his family name, not about the survival of his great-great-grandson. That is, he wouldn't have cared that Sirius died if only Sirius or Regulus had fathered a child on a pureblood witch before death. << Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" stories, too, and reasons why, unlike Draco, they chose not to join the DEs >> In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to the recollection that the DE team in the Department of Mysteries left his wounded father to die or be captured and put in Azkaban. As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had written and deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco converse while Nott Sr is visiting Malfoy Sr. She stated that "Together these two Death Eaters' sons discuss Dumbledore's regime at Hogwarts and Harry Potter, with all sorts of stories that the Death Eaters tell about how this baby boy survived the Dark Lord's attack." I don't think there's anything to indicate that they were debating whether the Dark Lord's return would be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con) but I'm under the impression that some fans think that was the conversation, indicating that Theo disliked the DE thing even before his father was wounded. Betsy Hp wrote in : << I think this can be an interesting discussion. It's not one that the series ever entertains though, IMO. Which is too bad and I think an example of us fans deepening what was, in the end, a rather simple tale. JKR could have used Marietta's story (or Sirius's or Regulus's or Draco's or Percy's) to explore family loyalty and when (if ever) it should be broken and are there right ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. She didn't. >> I was disappointed when that there interview quote showed that Rowling had given far less thought to the matter of loyalty and betrayal than we readers have, but the books surely have given us plenty of opportunity to think about loyalty and betrayal. You may be tired of hearing me say that Pettigrew and Snape did the same thing: joined one side with their friends, switched to the other side, spied on their old side for their new side, thus betraying their friends, some of whom were killed or imprisoned as a result. (Okay, for Snape we have only Sirius's word that Wilkes and Rosier were his friends, Sirius's & Moody's word that they were killed by Aurors while resisting arrest, and inference that Snape's spy information to Dumbledore helped the Aurors catch them. But even if he didn't cause their deaths, he *was* a traitor to the side he had first given his loyalty to.) One's treachery makes him a hero; the other's treachery makes him a villain. I thought she cared, because she gave us Two More matched pairs, one I can't remember right now, and the other is Dobby and Kreachur. As of HBP, Dobby and Kreachur were the same: House Elves who believed in the side that their masters opposed, so they betrayed their masters to a person whom they preferred. Dobby also had a goal of his own (getting his freedom), so Kreachur was more unselfish. But DH gave Dobby a heroic death and turned Kreachur into a good dog, so their stories are all different now. Carol wrote in : << We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see again and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with Dolores Umbridge. >> I was certain that Umbridge was lying about being related to the Selwyns. If the locket had had a different letter on it, she would have chosen a different Pureblood family to pretend to be related to. Of course, my track record suggests that I'm wrong and even Umbridge tells the truth. Anyway, I have been unable to get my act together to make a timeline of when in the events of OOP Umbridge acquired the locket, and did it co-incide with a distinct increase in her nastiness? Bart wrote in : << When I admitted that I had never heard the term "the prestige" in reference to stage magic, I felt MUCH better when I heard an interview where Christopher Priest stated that he made up the usage of the term. >> I'm an admirer of the OnLine Etymology Dictionary which says: <> And my beloved American Heritage Dictionary says at : << prestidigitation ... ETYMOLOGY: French (influenced by prestigiateur, juggler, conjurer, from prestige, illusion), from prestidigitateur, conjurer : preste, nimble (from Italian presto; see presto) + Latin digitus, finger; see digit. >> From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 6 14:23:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:23:55 -0000 Subject: Toujours la politesse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Random832: > > you DARE presume to tell me what > > I did or did not visualize Eggplant: > To quote Harry "Yes I dare!" Geoff: I have been contemplating for some time posting on the subject of the way in which members of the group in disagreement have been responding to each other and this exchange rather underpinned my thoughts. Firstly, I was surprised that this thread decided to resurface because I thought we had beaten it to death a week or so ago. I agreed with Eggplant over the mathematical definition of a helix but pointed out that, certainly in vernacular UK English, many people would not be familiar with the word helix - or its meaning - and hence would probably use the word spiral whether corerct or not; not the first instance of a word being used wrongly. But I think that any member of the group trying to tell another member what they can or cannot visualise or imagine is a highly dangerous procedure. Visualisation is often a very subjective matter. I dare say if I shared my visual perception of many events in the Potterverse with other members, we would all "see" the action and events differently. So we are on uncertain ground by trying to dictate how things are seen. As the old German protest song puts it "Die Gedanken sind frei". My thoughts had originally been triggered by the threads which have polarised many group members particularly along the line of "DH is awful/DH is quite good" ever since the 21st July. I have carefully kept out of the fray having watched the similar "table tennis" threads regarding Snape and whether Dumbledore was dead which ran on ad infinitum post-HBP. Like visualisation above, we all have unique takes on DH. Personally, after my first reading, I was left rather emotionally stranded on the shore not quite knowing which way my thoughts were going but, after two more reads, I have decided that I like the book. But that is my interpretation. It doesn't have to be anyone else's. I think that the problem is that some members seem to believe that there should be a "standard" analysis and having stated their version, take umbrage with anyone who disagrees and often continue with subtlety of a Bludger bat taking the attitude of Basil Fawlty in the "Fawlty Towers" series that, if you say something in English often enough, loudly enough and slowly enough, the foreigner will understand. The trouble is that a few members have variously become patronising, dismissive, scathing and sometimes impolite in their attempts to train the others to see and accept their point of view. Ultimately, this can lead to a breach of netiquette and of courtesy. I hope I am right in that all of us who are members joined to share and exchange views with other lovers of the HP books and to ENJOY belonging to the group. I can but hope that we can share our agreements and disagreements in that spirit. I admit that there have been times when I have become annoyed and irritated with some members but I hope that I have always tried to disagree in a constructive and calm way - please don't send too many Howlers if you disagree! I hope that in the post-canon era, we will continue to debate pet topics but if we do reach the "agree to disagree" scenario, we will do so remaining friends and fellow lovers of JKR's world and its ramifications. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 6 14:29:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:29:48 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177770 > Magpie: > So they're fine the way they are. They don't need to be challenged > in this way and they weren't. Though the last thing I'd call any one > of the Trio was powerless, and I actually don't think there's > anything wrong with pointing out the power kids often do have over > other kids and other people. > Pippin: Um, no, they're not fine the way they are. But sometimes the need for reassurance is greater than the need to be challenged. Despite all the wonders Harry can perform, in each book except the last he is ultimately rescued by an adult*, and that says something about the relative power of adults and children in the Potterverse and in RL. As Harry's story shows, even middle-class kids from nice families are not always well cared for. But even when they are, they still live in a world haunted by terrorism, school-shootings, and global threats of war and natural catastrophe against which they can do almost nothing except learn and hope. Pippin *PS/SS: Dumbledore CoS: Dobby, from Lucius Malfoy PoA: Snape (the rescue of the unconscious Harry from the grounds) GoF: Dumbledore, from Fake!Moody assisted by Snape and McGonagall OOP: Dumbledore HBP: Snape From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 6 15:11:25 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:11:25 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177771 > > Magpie: > > So they're fine the way they are. They don't need to be challenged > > in this way and they weren't. Though the last thing I'd call any one > > of the Trio was powerless, and I actually don't think there's > > anything wrong with pointing out the power kids often do have over > > other kids and other people. > > > > Pippin: > Um, no, they're not fine the way they are. But sometimes the need for > reassurance is greater than the need to be challenged. Despite all > the wonders Harry can perform, in each book except the last he is > ultimately rescued by an adult*, and that says something about the > relative power of adults and children in the Potterverse and in RL. Magpie: I see nothing in the books that indicates that Harry and Herimone especially are not fine the way they are, people that others should be learning from and not vice versa most of the time. Being rescued by an adult has nothing to do with what I was talking about. In that area he seems equal to or better than the adults of his world. Pippin: > > As Harry's story shows, even middle-class kids from nice families > are not always well cared for. But even when they are, they still > live in a world haunted by terrorism, school-shootings, and global > threats of war and natural catastrophe against which they can do > almost nothing except learn and hope. Magpie: I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. It seems to compeltely agree with it. Harry is like a good thing haunted by living in a world of bad things. Why would he have to be challenged as part of the problem? It's things outside of him that are the problem. None of these have to do with bigotry or examining one's own flaws. It seems more ilke a reason that the stuff I brought up doesn't need to be dealt with, not a way of dealing with it. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 15:50:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:50:26 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177772 --- "errolowl" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Now, in the final Duel, several things are coming > into play, ... But what made the final curse rebound? > It could be complex or it could be simple. It maybe > that Harry simply casting /any curse/ at the moment > that Voldemort sends his curse, caused the rebound. > ... it could be a combination of all or some of these > things. We will never know for sure, ... > > > Errol: > > And lets not forget the Hallows. I'm jumping in here, > and this may have already come up, but technically > Harry possessed all three hallows and thus was the > legendary "master of death" at that point in time. > ... He couldn't be killed if the legend had any > truth to it. > bboyminn: Yes, IF the legend had any truth to it, but I don't think it does. The legend is based in the truth of the three brothers and the objects they created but beyond that it has been expanded into a fanciful fairy story. I don't think we can take that fairy story literally. The 'Master of Death' might be the 'fairy' part of the story, but that doesn't change the fact the the Hallows objects were immensely powerful and unique. I do think Harry being the Master of the Wand does come into play, and that is a powerful advantage in Harry's favor. But I don't believe for one minute the total Master of Death concept. > Errol: > > ... > > The point is, I wonder why JKR wrote in so many > things that would serve the purpose of protecting > Harry. Just one plot device, sufficiently set up > would have done. The blood, the wand, the hallows, > the sacrifice ... seems like over kill to me. > bboyminn: Though I am only guessing, I think that was the point. In truth, Harry once again survived by pure dumb luck, a lot of guessing, and a lot of bluffing. True he chose to act rather than cower in fear, and that is a very big plus for him. > Errol: > > As a side note, when did Harry figure out the > possibility that he owned the wand? If he knew in > the forest that he probably possessed all three > Hallows, that makes his sacrifice all the more > laudable. If he figured it out later, it takes away > from the whole hallows plot point. I am curious what > people think about this. > bboyminn: Harry was Master of Death in the metaphorical sense. Those who master death no longer fear it. They understand that to be alive, and to live the life you are given, is to accept that you can and will die. One could say that Voldemort was deathly afraid of death. Where as, much like the third wise brother of which he is descended, Harry embraced death and the possibility of dying. Voldemort lived his life in fear of death. Harry many times embraced the possibility of death fearlessly. Harry understood that some things are worth dying for; friends for example. Now to the central question, when did Harry figure out that /he/ was Master of the Wand? I'm not actually sure that he did. I've always said there was an element of confident bluffing going on in Harry's final speech. It seems reasonable that Harry was the owner of the Wand, but even Ollivander doesn't fully understand the change of a wands allegiance, so I don't see how Harry could know for sure. I think it was fairly clear that Voldemort was not the owner, and I think more than anything, that was the important factor. I think Harry is putting it together in pieces as he goes. To some extent, I think he realized part of it when he talked to Ollivander at Shell Cottage, but hadn't really put together the full implications of what it meant. I think another piece of the puzzle falls into place when Harry talks to Dumbledore in the near-death Kings Cross. I think in the final moment of confrontation with Voldemort all the pieces fall into place. He sees that Voldemort's spells are no longer binding, for example. I think more than anything Harry is trying to shake Voldemort confidence and get him rattled. Harry knows that when Voldemort becomes very emotional, the barrier between them drops, and this is critical to Harry winning. He has to know precisely when Voldemort's curse is coming, and the only way to know that is to get Voldemort to drop his Occlumency protection. So, as I said, to some extent Harry is bluffing as a means of instilling fear and doubt in Voldemort. As I said, it may merely be the fact that Harry cast /any curse/ at the same moment that Voldemort did that saved Harry and caused the curse to rebound. Then again, it may not have been that simple after all. I think that was the point. We know Harry was saved, and we know several factors came into play, but we really don't know for sure what saved Harry. I think JKR did that as a reflection of life. In life, we never really know /why/ things are. We make up explanations after-the-fact to give us comfort, but truthfully we don't know why we are alive while so many around us die. > > Errol > (Who's not at all clear what the point of the Hallows > was anyway.) > bboyminn: I think the Hallows serve many purposes in the story. One I think is Temptation. Can and will Harry be distracted from his central task? The Hallows represent tremendous Power. Will Harry chose Power over self- sacrifice? Remember that as soon as Harry figures the Hallows out, he is obsessed with them. Sure that if he can obtain all this power, he can defeat Voldemort. It is only after a long hard bout of thinking after Dobby's death, that Harry makes his choice of self- sacrifice or what will soon become self-sacrifice. Metaphorically, I think this is symbolic of The Last Temptation of Christ. In a sense, Christ is being offered a choice between Power and Self-Sacrifice. The Devil says choose me and you can have unfathomable power; choose God and you can have the death you know is coming. In the end, Christ choses self- sacrifice. Christ does his duty, and so does Harry. In another sense, the Hallows are there as a means of contrasting Harry attitude toward death with Voldemorts. Harry is always willing to risk and sacrifice himself for others, whereas, as much as possible, Voldemort sends others out to do his dirty work and still takes all the credit for himself. Again, I think the Hallows set up a metaphor by which we can compare and contrast Harry and Voldemort. Finally, to some extent, the Hallows are merely the McGuffin of the story. Something that the characters are obsessed with but in reality have little to do with the actual resolution of the plot. It is merely a device to force the story forward, much like the Tri-Wizards Tournament carried GoF forwards but in the end had little effect one way or the other. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 16:04:52 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:04:52 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177773 > >>Betsy Hp: > > But it was still Snape operating under the watchful (though > > dead ::shudder::) eye of Dumbledore, IMO. I'd been eagerly > > anticipating Snape acting on his own, and was disappointed. > > > >>Pippin: > > Dumbledore's portrait is honor-bound to serve Snape, the > current Headmaster. If Snape takes the portrait's direction and > not vice-versa, it is because they both so choose. That > *is* acting on one's own, just as Percy was acting of his own > volition when he served Fudge. Betsy Hp: Yes. Snape chose to remain a servant, to not act on his own. So I was quite disappointed. > >>Betsy_HP > > And where I thought we'd learn that Snape's redemption came about > > because of his own inner principles, instead, he was motivated by > > a (IMO) bizarre, sad, and incredibly unhealthy fixation on a > > random girl. It was a huge let down for me. > >>Pippin: > There was nothing random about Snape's love for Lily. They were > best friends. Their relationship was dysfunctional, the elephant > in the living room being Snape's anti-Muggle feelings, which > Lily enabled to some extent by making excuses for him. > Betsy Hp: Heh. To me the elephant in the room causing the dysfunction was Lily's not very well hidden contempt for Snape. It was an ugly relationship that any kid with healthy self-respect would have thrown over. But Snape thought he deserved whipping and Lily was willing to whip him. (The Gryffindor/Slytherin dynamic distilled, I suppose.) > >>Pippin: > > Nor is Snape a stalker. He does not attempt to see Lily after > she makes it clear she will not accept his apology. One > incident doth not a stalking make. > He does not react to seeing her in her nightdress, and she's > not concerned to appear in it. I read that as Snape not seeing > Lily entirely as a sex object, and being seen so as not a concern > of hers. > Betsy Hp: Snape was far too beneath Lily to ever be allowed to think of her that way and they both knew it. I'm sure he had a Lily-shrine at which he knelt and begged forgiveness and listed all the ways he was not worthy. (That staring into Harry's eyes at the end was pretty twisted, IMO.) Heh, Dumbledore's "you disgust me" comment was probably the moment Snape realized that this was the man he should serve. Finally someone who saw the real Snape! And Dumbledore delivered. > >>Pippin: > Harry also cried when he read Lily's letter "brushing the wetness > from his eyes" was that unhealthy too? I mean, Mum's been dead > for years, kid, get over it :) Oh, and Slughorn also tears up when > he remembers Lily. She was apparently an extraordinary person > and lots of people still miss her. What's wrong with that? Betsy Hp: I... what? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Sure, Harry can miss his mom, and Slughorn can be a maudlin drunk. What does that have to do with Snape? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yes, Snape did those things. And it was very brave. And then, > > in DH, he did nothing with Draco. Why'd he even save the boy > > (life and soul) in the first place? > >>Pippin: > If it's Draco's soul that matters, and it's safe, what else needs to > be done? Turn the boy into a cog in Dumbledore's plan? > Betsy Hp: I'm unclear as to how Draco being forced to torture people for Voldemort makes his soul safe. And I'd have liked to see Draco play a part in *Snape's* plan. Or Draco take action of any sort really. Just one step so he can finally get off that Tower. A teacher who cared about him would have tried to help Draco do that. > > Betsy Hp: > > > > And, since we cannot ignore DH, I see Snape as much reduced. From > > risking his life and soul for a student (Draco) and dominating > > the attacking DE's with a glance (HBP), Snape as headmaster > > cannot keep his charges from being permanently scarred. Cannot > > control a rather stupid (as per the books, anyway) pair of DE's. > > And does nothing to help a family I thought were his friends. > >>Pippin: > What he does to help the family that were his friends is to > bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible. > Betsy Hp: Really? *Snape* does? I thought it was all Harry. Snape gets him the sword, but wasn't that about all Snape does? (Oh, he gets Mad- Eye killed, for some odd reason. And there was that fortuitous memory dump.) And why are we supposed to think Snape is worried about the Malfoys? Is there anything in DH to suggest it? > >>Pippin: > I thought, from the way that McGonagall had no trouble at all > controlling the Carrows (I thought her "gallant" was the > ultimate in sarcasm) that like Umbridge, the Carrows had to be > endured despite the damage they caused. Getting rid of > them would not address the root of the problem, which is > a powerful outside agency interfering at Hogwarts. Like > Umbridge, the Carrows are only emissaries. Betsy Hp: Screw the students, huh? ::shrug:: Kind of Dumbledore's normal way of operating though so yeah, scew 'em. And really, that's the final nail on the cross for me. The Snape in my head was so completely above and beyond Dumbledore as far as thinking and morals that he couldn't not have existed in JKR's story except to utterly subvert it. Once again, I was reading a completely differet book. The reality has been... disappointing. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 6 16:09:43 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:09:43 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177774 Ceridwen: > This is where I thought Rowling was going with the Slytherin thread. > Sure, Slytherins are outright bigots more than we were shown of the > other houses. But it's bigotry as well to see someone sorted into > Slytherin and think, yeah, they're bad. That's a subtler form of > bigotry, but it can be just as devastating to the Slytherins if > someone with that attitude was in a position to affect their lives. > Slytherins aren't uniformly rich, Snape proved that. A Gryffindor > personnel director in a position to hire people with an anti- > Slytherin bias would perhaps prefer "anyone but a Slytherin." It > isn't based on race, or on class, or on birth status, just on > Hogwarts house. It's still a prejudiced -ism. Pippin: I think Rowling did go there, she just didn't go there in the way that some expected. I think we get balled up talking about good and evil because that is really meta to the way the characters perceive each other. The adults rarely speak of others as good or evil. The word that comes up all the time is "trust". Hagrid says that in Voldemort's time you couldn't tell who to trust, and intimates that he doesn't trust Slytherins. In the second book we learn that Salazar Slytherin didn't trust Muggleborns and this distrust lingers especially, but not only, in Slytherin House. In the third book the issue is trusting werewolves, in the fourth, foreigners and half-Giants, in the fifth Harry himself and the Giant Grawp, in the sixth Snape, and in the seventh book Dumbledore. In all these books we see the harm mistrust based on false grounds can do. The issue of employment is more than dealt with in all of them. Lupin can't get a job, despite his eminent likability, because no one will trust a werewolf. As it turns out, there are legitimate reasons to fear the werewolf philosophy of Fenrir Greyback, but no legitimate reason to project that fear onto Lupin. There are also legitimate reasons to distrust Lupin, as he's a coward, but that hasn't got anything to do with Fenrir. There are legitimate reasons for disliking the Slytherin philosophy and legitimate reasons for disliking individual Slytherins. But there's no legitimate reason given in canon to project dislike of that philosophy onto individuals. We have only Hagrid's bigoted remarks: never was a wizard who went bad that wasn't in Slytherin, and "bad blood" in the Malfoy family, both of which are denied through Peter Pettigrew and Sirius Black. As Sirius says, all the pureblood families are inter-related. If Malfoy blood is bad then the Weasleys and the Blacks should be tainted too, along with the Potters. As a child Harry feared some of his Slytherin abilities and tried to deny them. He then projected that fear onto all the Slytherins he knew, and saw Snape as hating him because he, Harry, was an enemy of Voldemort, the wizard who went as bad as you could go. Of course Snape did hate him, but not for that reason. As we learned for certain in DH, Harry is capable of dark magic. just as he feared. The Hat was not wrong. The good news is that he had a choice about this ability. But so do the Slytherins themselves. Snape did. If he needed the help of a higher power, that does not make him different than anyone else. No, Snape was not acting on interior principle alone. But neither was anyone else, except Harry, maybe, for the few moments in which he dropped the stone and faced Voldemort alone and with no hope for himself. The point is, the Hat's assessment of your abilities does not mean that the Hat, or the House, controls how they are used. That's what Harry learned about Snape, it's manifest that he learned it, and it's much more important, IMO to overcoming RL prejudice than learning to like Snape would have been. Um, unless you think that people should only hire their friends, of course . Harry never finds a Slytherin he really likes. But in business, politics and war, canon shows us, who you like isn't as important as who you can trust. Dumbledore could trust people he didn't like very much, eg Snape, because he tried to get to know them despite his dislike, and to do that he kept his distaste to himself for the most part. As he says, that's manners. IMO, Harry's message to Al is that he needn't deny the Slytherin in himself if the Hat finds it there--Harry and Ginny already know who he is and the Hat's judgement won't change that. But if Al needs to deny it, the Hat could let him, as it did with Harry. Harry trusts Al, because he knows him. Significantly, IMO, the one person Harry warns Al against trusting is his own brother, the Gryffindor James. '"And you don't want to believe everything he tells you about Hogwarts," Harry put in.' Pippin just realizing that Dumbledore's "I am going to tell you everything" should be understood in the same sense as Harry's promise to give Griphook the sword. Didn't say *when* he was going to tell Harry everything, heh heh heh ::loves DH:: From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Oct 6 16:14:19 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:14:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4707B45B.40207@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177775 > Prep0strus: And the hat doesn't just say ambitious - it > says 'will use any means', which is a much more dangerous and > frightening description. Not a bad description of Dumbledore, though; do we know what house he was in? > That bigotry and racism are something built into > the house. And into society - once it's the government's "line", almost everyone, except for the Order of the Phoenix and a couple schoolkids and recently graduated Gryffindors, takes it up enthusiastically. It's actually a fairly compelling moral message, about the danger of society at large falling into that sort of pattern, but it falls flat when you think of it as a "slytherin thing" - but I have no doubt that, to run with the Nazi analogy: just like most rank-and-file german soldiers and ordinary citizens, many wizards were unable to recognize their own culpability for "just following orders". > There is more to the house than 'ambition and cunning', and even if > that were all there was... there's still a paucity of admirable > traits. JKR goes out of her way to show the kind of ambition and kind > of cunning she means when she talks about Slytherin. Actually, I think what she does is show what she thinks of ambition in general, that is... > We see those > types of qualities used appropriately in other characters. ...I don't believe for a minute that she sees the twins or percy as "ambitious" - she thinks "ambition" is a negative quality, and won't use that word to describe anything positive. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 16:30:10 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:30:10 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <2795713f0710042116r42e33c8fq9401e7c8842d76fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177776 > >>Betsy HP: > > > And I thought it was odd that JKR tossed in Cho's comment that > Marietta's mother worked at the Ministry and it put her under a lot > of personal pressure... and then nothing. > >>Lynda: > Hmm. See I didn't find JKR tossing a remark concerning a minor > character's parent and the fact that her job put the character > under a lot of pressure strange at all. And I did not expect to see > the situation addressed more in the rest of the series. Marietta > was, after all Harry's ex-girlfriend's friend. Nothing less than > that, but certainly nothing more. > Betsy Hp: The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione. JKR could have had Marietta choose to snitch for obviously selfish reasons. She did not. And my view of Hermione was tainted because of JKR's story-telling choice. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 6 17:01:30 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:01:30 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177777 > > Betsy Hp: > The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. > Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that > student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione. JKR > could have had Marietta choose to snitch for obviously selfish > reasons. She did not. And my view of Hermione was tainted because > of JKR's story-telling choice. > Pippin: It's not that Marietta showed more loyalty to her mother than to Hermione, it's that Marietta promised her loyalty to the DA and then went back on it. I think we get JKR's views on Hermione's means of punishing traitors when the silver hand turns out to be a similar device. The curse doesn't kill Marietta, OTOH it doesn't give others a chance to intercede for her either. It doesn't leave room for a second chance. JKR does not want us to see Hermione as entirely beneficent, and in the end canon does not show her that way. I hate to keep harping back on this, but I haven't seen it addressed except in a facetious comment that the Trio really wouldn't be able to keep their hands off the Elder Wand. Canon is that they accepted Harry's decision not to use the wand and that Dumbledore thought it was the right thing. The Trio understand that they are not wise enough or good enough to rule the WW unopposed, so the argument that JKR presents them as perfect people is a strawman, IMO. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 6 17:28:40 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:28:40 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH4, The Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177778 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter 4, The Seven Potters > > Questions > > 1. ... How do the memories and events around Sirius's bike Aussie: JKR tries to remind old readers, and introduce new readers, to previous storylines. Many people asked what happened to that bike, so JKR used DH to give some closure on some of those questions. > 2. Harry's feeling in this quote? "...like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost." Aussie: glad someone already answered that .. i would have taken ages to find it. > 3. Were you surprised by ...team members--? > Why did JKR set it up like this? Aussie: Kingsley! Straight after Vernon was told Kingsley was doing too important a job guarding the PM, Harry out ranks the PM by getting Kingsley. But no McGonagall? > 4. Compare ...Advance Guard from OoP. How is it different? > How has the mood changed? Aussie: Most of the OP guards never met Harry. But the DH guards had to immitate Harry. They had to know him, so were closer to his age and so more fun. > 5. Tonks's parents and Molly's Auntie Muriel > providing safe houses? Are they Order members? Aussie Not OP members, but Tonk's parents are more aware of OP than other safe house providers. The others just knew someone would arrive and would need to use a portkey. They didn't 'need to know' who was coming. They just needed to keep the protective spells in place. > 6. There are some laugh-out-loud jokes in the beginning of the > chapter. ... What do you think of JKR's use of humor here? Aussie: The beginning of the book was without much humour until the twins arrived. It was going to get worse soon, so the timing was great. Loved the jokes and Harry seeing an expression on his (Fleur's) face that he never wanted to see again. Knowing of the Polyjuice, would Hermione and Fleur had worn singlets? > 7. ...Firebolt is lost, Hedwig is killed. Harry's > attention is on the battle. Did the pacing of the story affect your > reaction to Hedwig's death? ... Is there a literary reason for > Hedwig's death and the loss of the Firebolt? Aussie: I paused with Hedwig's death anyway. Hedwig and the Firebolt would have been too tempting for Harry to use and too easy to trace. JKR had to dispose of them. > 8. Moody's plan was based on the best information he had. But in > what ways did his plan backfire? Which beliefs were wrong? Should > Harry have been paired with someone else? Aussie: Moody's plan was based on Mundungus. Ther should have been scouts, or even Mrs Figgs cats as lookouts. Harry was paired with the wizard/witch least likely to be able to Side-Along-Disapperate should the need arise. > 9. Did you remember that Voldemort was not using his own wand? > What were your thoughts about Harry's wand acting on its own? Aussie: No repeat of the graveyard with another wand since it wouldn't be the wand's twin. "... we're no nearer catching Black than inventing self-spelling wands." (Arther Weasley to Molly in Leaky Cauldron - POA). No wonder everyone thought Harry imagined his wand acting on it own. > 10. Were there any incidences of irony that you noticed at a re- > reading? Aussie: "Lily's protection will break as soon as Harry turns 17 or as soon as he no longer calls Privet Drive home." I thought Harry never wanted to return to Privot Drive after Blowing up his aunt in POA. > 11. Was the overall plot advanced beyond the events of the chapter? > Did you see any detail that played into the story later? Aussie: Voldemort's broomless flying technique. It was not Disapperating to a point just ahead (since Severus would not be able to copy that while escaping Hogwarts grounds). I wondered if his robes wereenchanted with similar spell as they use on Flying Carpets (mentioned in GOF as not being allowed to be imported). I thought that would play a part later in the book. > 12. Your question here: Aussie: "Harry sees Hagrid, spread-eagled on the ground" ... Hagrid is my favourite, and I thought he died here and with the spiders during the Hogwarts battle. From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 18:54:40 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:54:40 -0000 Subject: Harry: "I WANT THE TRUTH!" (Was: Seeking the truth )--LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177779 Thank you, Siriusly Snapey Susan, for the extensive work you did finding quotes regarding your interesting question about Harry's desire to know the truth and his being a Seeker. I am approaching an answer, which is sketchy, unfortunately. It builds on an earlier post I made about the message of HP really being about faith. I also have to recommend prep0strus' remarks in his response to you in post 177766, about the nature of God and people's ability to know God's plan. I think much of DH was Potter's 40 days in the wilderness, and the Hallows were his test, the temptations set before him. Because he chose at a crucial moment to deny the quest for the Hallows and pursue Dumbledore's plan to destroy Horcruxes, he showed himself to be the Chosen One, the one who ironically does not need to prove his power, but merely has to accept self-sacrifice to save mankind. Because he is the Chosen One, his ability to know the Good is innate. Seeking (a manifestation of ambition) only provides distraction and temptation. A counter-example is Snape, who seems always to have sought knowledge and, to some degree, the power knowledge brings. When it comes to Harry, Snape always tells the truth as far as he knows it, but this truth cannot help Harry, and in fact, Harry almost always rejects it. It is the truth that Harry comes by through instinct, through his essential goodness, that helps Harry. That truth leads him to faith in Dumbledore's plan. Both Harry and Snape struggled with faith. Both wanted to know the answers, wanted to be told the secrets, felt they deserved this. Both had to endure isolation from Dumbledore (and Snape, emotional abuse) and the vilification of others. The difference is that Snape had to set up an emblem of goodness in Lily to find goodness in himself. I imagine JKR felt he deserved this for his ambition. Harry, on the other hand, had the truth within him all along, and it was supposed to be a greater love. Trust is also a key to the story. Trust is faith. Did Dumbledore have faith in his followers, enough to give them the truth, to give them the tools they would need to defeat Voldemort? I think Dumbledore expected his followers, especially Harry, to find the truth within themselves, to just *know* it, to reject the path of intellect and ambitious effort and follow the simpler path of faith and following the word of God (or Dumbledore, in this case). In the end, a Seeker can only rely on instinct to follow the movements of the Snitch. Anyway, this is the way I see the message of the HP stories. I won't include my personal perspective on it. lealess From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 18:58:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:58:57 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. > Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that > student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione. JKR > could have had Marietta choose to snitch for obviously selfish > reasons. She did not. And my view of Hermione was tainted because > of JKR's story-telling choice. > I, too, find it an odd choice to show the consequences of Hermione's hex--and to bring it up again in HBP. I end up veering uncomfortably from one side to the other about what I think JKR is doing. On one hand, although she never shows Hermione or Harry regretting Marietta's fate, she does show it. If the last we had seen of Marietta was the pimples showing up in DD's office, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would be a cartoon sort of justice... but we'd take it in and forget it. Like the passing glimpse of the other children in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As he ascends into the heavens, Charlie sees that the children bear the physical marks of their "fixing" by the Oompa- Loompas. But do we worry about them? I doubt anyone but the most tenderhearted of children thinks about them at all. We assume that they will get better, and be all the better for the experience. Likewise, we'd assume that Marietta got better if we never saw her again, and didn't see Cho's reproachful (or is it apologetic?) look at Harry. Or know that Harry felt satisfaction when he saw two months later that Marietta was still wearing her scars. It seems to me that we can take these moments in three different ways. (By the way, that's the general "we" and doesn't require that "we" have to agree on which way we take it.) 1. We can agree with Harry, and enjoy that Marietta has been well and justly punished for her betrayal. Or 2. We can disagree with Harry and feel uncomfortable with our hero (and friend Hermione) because their idea of justice goes beyond what we consider acceptable. Or 3. We can convince ourselves that the damage isn't all that bad, and that Marietta will eventually recover. I think that's reading against the text, but I don't fault anyone for doing it, as I tend to read against the text about all sorts of things (especially when it comes to Snape). As far as Option 1 goes, I find it weird, because the punishment is so close to actual practice--I can't help thinking of the women who are scarred with acid, usually for committing adultery. It's also much like shaving the head, which was a common punishment for women who sleep with enemy soldiers (with the obvious difference that hair grows back fairly quickly). Now, maybe I'm bringing in RL stuff that JKR never intended to apply, but it beats me how someone who worked for Amnesty, Int... an organization that works to expose and stop these practices, would not make that connection. So, I tell myself that it's a deliberate move on JKR's part to invoke Option 2--which gets me to question the tactics of the "good" guys and, by extension, to question any RL "good" guys who step over the line of acceptable treatment to enemies. And then she goes and tells an interviewer how much she despises those, like Marietta, who betray their friends. And then I'm left reeling, because if she thinks that's a just punishment, then the extra glimpses of Marietta aren't about justice--or making us question justice, but seem more like spitting on the corpse of a hanged man. Then I end up questioning what the intent is-- and from that, what the intent is with all the moments of justice and punishment, including the times that Draco starts a fight and ends up reaping a tenfold penalty for it, or when the children mock Umbridge by making the clopping sounds, or Montague ending up with some unspecified, but also permanent damage from being shoved into the Vanishing Cabinet, or Rita Skeeter held captive for days and then blackmailed into becoming Hermione's tool. Again, if that's a deliberate strategy on JKR's part, it's brilliant. If not, then it's simply that I have a real problem with her sense of the world. Which is why I can't blame anyone who wants to take Option 3 and speculate that some things happened in the story that aren't necessarily supported by the text. Montavilla47 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 19:41:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:41:38 -0000 Subject: Slytherins/ Dobby /Slytherins /Loyalty & Traitors /Selwyn /Prestige In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177781 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: bboyminn: Let me diverge for a moment, and say that I always look forward to your posts. Even though they seem to come late to the discussion, they are always wise and insightful, and rarely fail to stimulate a long and deep discussion. Just wanted you to know that you were appreciated. > > Steve bboyminn wrote in > : > > << The Sorting Hat sees potential, and the potential > to be cunning and ambitious is not a negative thing. >> > Catlady: > > I don't think cunning and ambition define who is > Sorted into Slytherin. I know the Sorting Hat SAID > those are the criteria, but I don't see it. The young > Slytherins we know best are Draco and Crabbe and > Goyle and Pansy. Crabbe and Goyle don't seem cunning, > nor ambitious ... > bboyminn: First, are you implying that the Sorting Hat is lying? I don't think so. Though I will admit we have to be careful not to take the Sorting Hat as absolutely literal. The Hat is making statements in the confines of a song, and that restrict the range of dialog that it is capable of. But, it is possible to be cunning and ambitious without being smart. Grabbe and Goyle are cunning and ambitious within their means. I think this is true of all the House traits. I think I can assume that we all see Peter as a coward, yet he was sorted into Gryffindor, House of the Brave. I think what we are seeing in Peter is a different type of Courage. Normally when we say 'courage' we mean Heroic Courage. That is what Harry has, heroic courage. But those who are true cowards are paralyzed. They cower in fear, afraid to act. Peter however does take action, and that takes courage. The manifestation of his action creates what I will call Cowardly Courage, which I acknowledge is the oxymoron of all oxymorons. Crabbe and Goyle aren't the smartest and are not likely to make it in the world on brains and intelligent business practices. But notice they latch on to Draco and Draco is certainly rising to the top of the economic scale, and Crabbe and Goyle plan, consciously or subconsciously, to ride to the top on his coattails. They do have ambitious plans for themselves and are applying those plans with all the cunning their limit minds can manage. I think we see this contrast in many of the House representatives. Luna is a Ravenclaw, but in some sense she comes off as dull and dimwitted both in her demeanor and in her beliefs. Yet we do see that she has intelligence when we as readers are allowed to see her beyond the surface. People keep claiming, or implying, that the Houses are perfectly defined. That JKR portrays all Slytherins as evil, all Gryffindors as wise and brave, etc.... But I think JKR sets up this counter- trait nature in every House. We see Ravenclaws that appear Dim. We see Hufflepuffs that appear disloyal. We see Gryfindors that appear cowardly. That is why I continually say that we can't judge all Slytherins by the few bad Slytherins we are shown. More on that later. > <> > << Also, I simply can't believe that /most/ Slytherins > don't go on to live perfectly normal lives. ... >> > > ... > > << I suspect more likely they become good businessmen > and entrepreneurs. >> > Catlady: > > I agree with perfectly normal lives, but not that > they produce that many more entrepreneurs and > successful businesspeople than the other Houses. > ... > bboyminn: Point taken, I was generalizing. I think a greater portion of business people come out of Slytherin, that being driven by ambition. But to be truly successful, you have to be able to apply all of the various House traits. For as long as it serves them, a Slytherin must be intelligent, hardworking, loyal, and courageous. For a Gryffindor to be successful, he must be able to apply a degree of cunning and ambition. But ambition can get twisted into doom as we see with the Gaunts. Further, I don't see Crabbe and Goyle as being great businessmen, but I do see them as 'doing as they are told' and therefore managing to run a successful business for Malfoy. They are his stooges, but I speculate that they are moderately successful and moderately wealthy stooges as a result. Or at least they would be if things hadn't gone the way they did. > ... > > << Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" > stories, too, and reasons why, unlike Draco, they > chose not to join the DEs >> > > In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to > the recollection that the DE team in the Department > of Mysteries left his wounded father to die or be > captured and put in Azkaban. > > As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had > written and deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco > converse while Nott Sr is visiting Malfoy Sr. ... I > don't think there's anything to indicate that they > were debating whether the Dark Lord's return would > be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con)... > ... > bboyminn: JKR also said that Theo was not a joiner or a follower. That implies that he is capable of free and independent thinking, and I have often though he was wise enough to see the folly of Voldemort being in charge. I have often said that what is good for business is good for Slytherin, but more importantly, that Voldemort was absolutely NOT good for business. The implications of Voldemort in charge would have been catastrophic for England, for Britain, for Muggles, for trade, for business, and for the world. Voldemort was really foolish enough to think that once he outed the wizard world, that the rest of the world would not oppose him. Quite misguided in my opinion. Voldemort would have set the rest of both the magical world and the muggle world against him and with overwhelming force. He might be able to fight and defeat the small wizard population of Britian, but he certainly could not resist the force of the entire world set against him. Voldemort's rule was doomed from the very beginning, and I keep telling myself that there must of been some wise business-minded Slytherins who saw this. Another odd thing is that Voldemort could have certainly ruled the British wizard world and probably the European wizard world, if he had chosen the path of good. He was certainly smart enough, cunning enough, ambitions enough, and magically powerful enough. He could have had what he wanted if he had pursued it (minus the pure- blood mania) by legal and ethical means. > Betsy Hp wrote in > : > > << ...I think an example of us fans deepening what was, > in the end, a rather simple tale. JKR could have used > Marietta's story ... to explore family loyalty and > when (if ever) it should be broken and are there right > ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. She didn't. >> > Catlady: > > ... the books surely have given us plenty of > opportunity to think about loyalty and betrayal. You > may be tired of hearing me say that Pettigrew and > Snape did the same thing: joined one side with their > friends, switched to the other side, spied on their > old side for their new side, ... One's treachery > makes him a hero; the other's treachery makes him a > villain. > .... > bboyminn: Fair warning; as usual, I am off on my own tangent here. This brings up an old battle I have been fighting. I agree we see that Snape and Peter, in the context you presented, do essentially the same thing, yet one is perceived as good, the other is perceived as evil. First, can we all actually see that? /IS/ one good and /IS/ one evil? It seems that some are constantly taking this morally neutral stance that saying, no we can't see that. Neither was more or less evil than the other. Using that tried, trite, and true analogy - The Nazis. Can we see that the Nazis are and were evil? On one hand, the Nazis did many good things. Yet on the other hand they committed unfathomable acts of clear evil against helpless, innocent, and defenseless people. On the other side of the coin, the Allies committed a fair share of bad acts, but some account, even evil acts. Yet again, is it that hard to see who the true evil is? The Nazis bombed London. The Allies bombed Berlin. Both cities nearly leveled. So, are they morally on equal ground, or is there a clear evil? I say yes there is a clear evil, a crystal clear evil. Even though the Allies did terrible things, they were responding to an unprovoked attack against the civilized world, and against a regime that would have spread death, tryanny, and oppression across the world. Keep in mind, that while I hate Nazis, I bear no ill will against the German people. Also, keep in mind that I hate Death Eaters, but, as a whole, I bear no ill will against Slytherins. I think they are annoying gits and not the type of people I would generally be friends with, but I don't hate them. Yes, Slytherin was set up as the House from which /bad/ would come. Just as Germany, by an assortment of circumstances, was set up as the country from which evil would come. But that doesn't make Germans or Slytherins, as a whole, evil. So, from Slytherin come the bad guys on all levels, and from Gryffindor come the good guys on all levels. Except, we do have Slytherin good guys, and Gryffindor bad guys. Even amoung the Gryffindor good guys, we see people who act bad. I'm thinking of young James and Sirius here; they did bad things. On a smaller scale, Fred and George did bad things. But are there really people who can not see that these are the good guys? Are there people who are so tied to their theme of moral neutrality, that they can't tell good from bad, in spite of the fact that good is doing bad on a small scale and bad is doing good? Sorry, like I said, I'm off on my own obscure tangent here, but this really bothers me. Yes, I concede that the good guys did bad things, but their actions pale in comparison to the bad and potential bad things that would have been done by the truly bad bad guys. I can forgive Harry his lapses, just as I forgive soldier the horrors of war they were forced into. Do, I think these good guys get off from their actions scot-free; no. Do we see them taken to task for their bad actions; no. But that doesn't mean that they never every suffer any consequences for their actions? Many kids in Middle and High School do cruel, dangerous, and illegal things, but to some extent we forgive them for the impetuousness of their youth. There are many actions in my youth that even now after many many many years still weigh heavily on my conscience. That /weight/ and regret do not constitute getting off scot-free. Again, sorry, just ranting and raving off in my own little world here. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 6 20:08:01 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:08:01 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177782 Montavilla: > > 1. We can agree with Harry, and enjoy that Marietta > has been well and justly punished for her betrayal. > > As far as Option 1 goes, I find it weird, because the > punishment is so close to actual practice--I can't > help thinking of the women who are scarred with > acid, usually for committing adultery. It's also > much like shaving the head, which was a common > punishment for women who sleep with enemy > soldiers (with the obvious difference that hair > grows back fairly quickly). > > Now, maybe I'm bringing in RL stuff that JKR never > intended to apply, but it beats me how someone > who worked for Amnesty, Int... an organization that > works to expose and stop these practices, would > not make that connection. > lizzyben: Just wanted to add that at the end of OOTP, Harry sees Cho & Marietta on the train - and the text makes sure to mention that Marietta is wearing a balaclava. A balaclava is a kind of ski mask that covers the entire face, leaving only the eyes visible. Marietta is so ashamed of her scars that she hides her face from the world. Attacks on the face are uniquely dehumanizing, because they remove our individual identity. If you picture a balaclava, it looks exactly like a burqa, hiding all individual features. In many countries women were specifically attacked & given facial scars as *punishment* for not wearing a burqa that hides their face. Here, a girl is given permanent facial scars as punishment for not following the rules, and made to cover & hide her face from shame - and that's a good thing. Lealess; > And then I'm left reeling, because if she thinks > that's a just punishment, then the extra glimpses > of Marietta aren't about justice--or making us > question justice, but seem more like spitting on > the corpse of a hanged man. > Then I end up questioning what the intent is-- > and from that, what the intent is with all the > moments of justice and punishment, including > the times that Draco starts a fight and ends up > reaping a tenfold penalty for it, or when the > children mock Umbridge by making the > clopping sounds, or Montague ending up with > some unspecified, but also permanent damage > from being shoved into the Vanishing Cabinet, > or Rita Skeeter held captive for days and then > blackmailed into becoming Hermione's tool. lizzyben: What really clinched it for me was how DH makes sure to tell us that Zacharias Smith ran cowardly before the Battle, pushing away first-years on his way out. There was no need for that sentence - it was just kicking & demeaning Smith the same way Ginny had enjoyed kicking & demeaning Smith. For his apparently horrible crime of questioning Harry Potter. So, we weren't supposed to question the many hexes against Smith or the way Ginny rammed into the booth during Smith's commentary. We were supposed to laugh along with the heroes. Montavilla: > Again, if that's a deliberate strategy on JKR's part, > it's brilliant. If not, then it's simply that I have > a real problem with her sense of the world. lizzyben: I think there's a large element of "revenge fantasy" to the novels, and that JKR has fun dishing out this revenge w/o always considering the consequences & implications of it. From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 6 21:56:51 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:56:51 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > Montavilla: > > > > 1. We can agree with Harry, and enjoy that Marietta > > has been well and justly punished for her betrayal. > > > > As far as Option 1 goes, I find it weird, because the > > punishment is so close to actual practice--I can't > > help thinking of the women who are scarred with > > acid, usually for committing adultery. It's also > > much like shaving the head, which was a common > > punishment for women who sleep with enemy > > soldiers (with the obvious difference that hair > > grows back fairly quickly). > > > > Now, maybe I'm bringing in RL stuff that JKR never > > intended to apply, but it beats me how someone > > who worked for Amnesty, Int... an organization that > > works to expose and stop these practices, would > > not make that connection. > > > > lizzyben: > > Just wanted to add that at the end of OOTP, Harry sees Cho & > Marietta on the train - and the text makes sure to mention that > Marietta is wearing a balaclava. A balaclava is a kind of ski mask > that covers the entire face, leaving only the eyes visible. > Marietta is so ashamed of her scars that she hides her face from > the world. > > Attacks on the face are uniquely dehumanizing, because they remove > our individual identity. If you picture a balaclava, it looks > exactly like a burqa, hiding all individual features. > > In many countries women were specifically attacked & given facial > scars as *punishment* for not wearing a burqa that hides their face. > Here, a girl is given permanent facial scars as punishment for not > following the rules, and made to cover & hide her face from shame - > and that's a good thing. Winterfell: Actually, Marietta is given what amounts to acne scars in the long run not for following the rules per se, but for betraying her schoolmates. I agree that it's a good thing that she has to hide her face from shame. She's earned that shame, but not primarily for not following rules, but for being a traitor. Betraying her fellow students had serious consequences that she should have considered before turning them in to Umbridge. >snip: > lizzyben goes on to write: > > I think there's a large element of "revenge fantasy" to the novels, > and that JKR has fun dishing out this revenge w/o always considering > the consequences & implications of it. Winterfell: While there are issues of revenge in the Harry Potter novels, there is absolutely no proof that JKR has "fun" dishing out this revenge w/o always considering the implications of such revenge. JKR has plot threads to further and I believe she fully knew the consequences & implications of what she wrote w/ regard to revenge. What motivated JKR to write what she did is known only by her unless she revealed her motivations in interviews. I just want to know what proof is there that JKR is having irresponsible fun when she is writing about revenge. Winterfell who thinks that JKR knows best why she writes what she does and not us readers. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Oct 7 00:10:33 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:10:33 -0000 Subject: Harry, impossible to kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Finally, to some extent, the Hallows are merely the > McGuffin of the story. Something that the characters > are obsessed with but in reality have little to do > with the actual resolution of the plot. It is merely > a device to force the story forward, much like the > Tri-Wizards Tournament carried GoF forwards but in > the end had little effect one way or the other. Much like the diversion of Sirius Black in PoA, when the *real* bad guy, who has been right under Harry's nose all the time, is completely overlooked. Scabbers is thrown in our faces over and over again, being chased by Crookshanks, looking ill, disappearing.... and we completely overlooked him as well. :) Meanwhile the "threat" of Sirius Black was no threat at all. Allie (who still likes PoA best of all) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 01:27:04 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:27:04 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177785 > Prep0strus: > It's fine, I guess, for you to lump characters, readers, and the > author all together as if they all have the same moral grounding. And > once JKR has put these books out into the world, people can read them > however they want (and we certainly do). But I think it's a little > silly to simply dismiss what she meant or was trying to do. My > original point, many days and posts ago, was that I felt JKR was using > Slytherin to represent what she thought was wrong in the world. And > that while some characters in Slytherin have depth and have incurred > sympathy, I don't think it rose to the level where we were supposed to > think Slytherin was actually equal or good. Therefore, it is not > bigoted to look down on Slytherin, because you are only looking down > on these wrong ideas. Has she done this very well? I think not. I > think there are many flaws. zgirnius: Rowling has spoken extensively on her intentions regarding Slytherin House, and her statements seem inconsistent with your theory on what she intends. Personally, I prefer to read a book, see what it says, and decide what it means without either peculating what the author intended, or relying on her statements to decide what the book means. However, if we are going to speculate on what she intends, I'd say what she claims to intend is a good place to start. Here's an excerpt from an interview she gave in 2005 (ES=Emerson Spartz). > ES: Why is Slytherin house still ? > JKR: Still allowed! > [All laugh] > ES: Yes! I mean, it's such a stigma. > JKR: But they're not all bad. They literally are not all bad. [Pause.] zgirnius: "They are literally not all bad". In other words, in Rowling's mind there exists a Slytherin who is not bad. It follows that the opinion that this Slytherin character is bad because s/he is a Slytherin, is therefore both incorrect and based on prejudice. Resuming where I so rudely interrupted our esteemed author... > JKR: Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with their flaws, and everyone's got them. It's the same way with the student body. If only they could achieve perfect unity, you would have an absolute unstoppable force, and I suppose it's that craving for unity and wholeness that means that they keep that quarter of the school that maybe does not encapsulate the most generous and noble qualities, in the hope, in the very Dumbledore-esque hope that they will achieve union, and they will achieve harmony. Harmony is the word. > ES: Couldn't ? > JKR: Couldn't they just shoot them all? NO, Emerson, they really couldn't! > [All laugh] > ES: Couldn't they just put them into the other three houses, and maybe it wouldn't be a perfect fit for all of them, but a close enough fit that they would get by and wouldn't be in such a negative environment? > JKR: They could. But you must remember, I have thought about this ? > ES: Even their common room is a gloomy dark room? > JKR: Well, I don't know, because I think the Slytherin common room has a spooky beauty. > ES: It's gotta be a bad idea to stick all the Death Eaters' kids together in one place. > [All crack up again ] > JKR: But they're not all ? don't think I don't take your point, but ? we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all there ? you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of Death Eaters' children. They are a small fraction of the total Slytherin population. I'm not saying all the other Slytherins are adorable, but they're certainly not Draco, they're certainly not, you know, Crabbe and Goyle. They're not all like that, that would be too brutal for words, wouldn't it? > ES: But there aren't a lot of Death Eater children in the other houses, are there? > JKR: You will have people connected with Death Eaters in the other houses, yeah, absolutely. > ES: Just in lesser numbers. > JKR: Probably. I hear you. It is the tradition to have four houses, but in this case, I wanted them to correspond roughly to the four elements. So Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is earth, and Slytherin is water, hence the fact that their common room is under the lake. So again, it was this idea of harmony and balance, that you had four necessary components and by integrating them you would make a very strong place. But they remain fragmented, as we know. zgirnius: The idea that Slytherin has something positive to contribute is "Dumbledoresque". Whatever one may think of the character post-DH, pre-DH this is the character she called an "epitome of good". So it seems to me she is endorsing this position regarding the houses as morally correct (if idealistic). And, returning to the books, which is what interests me, this is what I see in DH. Evidence, long kept from us, of the *correctness* of the view that Slytherin, too, has much we can value, through showing us more about the usual Slytherin suspects and revealing their strenghts along with the flaws that have been showcased all along. Pureblood supremacy was championed by Salazar Slytherin, and more recently by Tom Riddle and his followers. It is not, however, a selection criterion for Slytherin House, unless the Hat has consistently forgotten to mention this fact in all its songs. It is just an idea with some support in wizarding society broadly, which has historically received more support and emphasis in that house. Looking down on all members of the house is not the same as repudiating the pureblood ideology, any more than looking down on white Southerners in the US would have been a repudiation of racism after the Civil War. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 01:44:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:44:53 -0000 Subject: Slytherins/ Dobby /Selwyn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177786 Carol earlier: > > << Love takes the form of respect and affection for a house-elf in Regulus's case--note that Kreacher is inspired by him to lead the house-elves in the final segment of the battle. >> > Catlady responded: > Lucius and Narcissa were quite abusive of Dobby, and Dobby said that when the Dark Lord was in power, all House Elves were treated just as badly ("treated like vermin"). Regulus, a follower of the Dark Lord, loved his Kreachur, and Narcissa and Bellatrix treated Kreachur with enough kindness to move him to betray his owner. Was Dobby just *wrong* about how non-Malfoy Dark Wizards treat their House Elves? Not according to Hermione, who said it was perfectly normal for wizards (not just Dark Wizards) to test a poison on a House Elf... Carol again: I wondered the same thing, and I'm not sure that we have enough information to answer the question. We know that the Malfoys, including Narcissa and Draco, were regarded by Dobby as "bad, Dark wizards," and it's likely that Lucius was not the only one who abused him. Kreacher, in contrast, had been a loyal servant of the Black family while their aunt and uncle were alive and since Kreacher kept photographs of both Black sisters in his "den," it seems likely that they knew that. They, or rather Narcissa and, presumably, Lucius (Bellatrix was still in prison when Kreacher ran off to Narcissa during the Christmas holiday) would know how Kreacher felt about Sirius, whom he was betraying just by being at Malfoy Manor. They treated him kindly, no doubt, but only for their own ends, the Malfoys at that point being loyal to Voldemort. (Sidenote: It's not clear whether Bellatrix and her husband were hiding at the Malfoys' after their escape from Azkaban in OoP; it's not clear where they and the other DEs got wands, either. In any case, unless Kreacher made more than one visit to Narcissa, Bellatrix would not have been with her.) It's unclear whether Bellatrix's hatred of the renegade Dobby, whom she murders, extends to House-elves in general or just to him, but her treatment of the goblin Griphook suggests that unless she has an ulterior motive, she would abuse them horribly as nonhuman creatures inferior to wizards. If Kreacher had accompanied her to the cave, I don't doubt that she would have behaved like Voldemort rather than like Regulus, forcing Kreacher to drink the poison and regarding him as expendable. I suspect that Kreacher told his story to the Hogwarts House-Elves, who otherwise would have had no particular reason to follow him into battle and heed his rallying cry. That still doesn't answer the question of whether House-Elves in general were treated like vermin during VW1 (I'm hearing film!Dobby's voice in my head and wondering now if that line is actually in the book, but I know that the general idea is). I doubt that the Hogwarts Elves were, and the Crouches, who owned Winky's mother and grandmother before her, certainly inspired loyalty in their elves, and Hokey, Hepzibah Smith's House-Elf, seems devoted to her mistress and not abused by Dobby's standards. The tradition of beheading House-Elves when they got too old for work seems peculiar to the Black family. And yet, for the House-Elves to follow Kreacher, his story and Dobby's can't be the only examples of abuse. If someone like Slughorn can without compunction test bottles of mead on a House-Elf to see if they're poisoned, we can imagine what someone like Yaxley, the persecutor of Muggle-borns, would do to them. Or Travers, who refers to the begging Muggle-born Stunned by Ron as "it." (Another case, BTW, of not-so-admirable behavior by the Trio "for the greater good"?) I think that while it's likely that the House-Elves were perfectly happy working at Hogwarts under Dumbledore or Snape (who would not have abused them any mor than DD did), they were afraid of what would happen if Voldemort took over the school and every post was held by a Death Eater--especially if Kreacher had told his story. (It would not have mattered that the story's hero was a Slytherin and a Death Eater; its villain was Voldemort, against whom the hero--and, eventually, Kreacher--had turned. So they would fight "in the name of Master Regulus, champion of House-Elves" and then, having helped to defeat the would be oppressors, return to their daily lives and work. Carol earlier: > << Even Phineas shows love at one point, rushing to 12 GP to search for his great-great-grandson Sirius, refusing to believe that he's dead. >> > Catlady: > I thought Phineas Nigellus was anxious about the continuance of his family name, not about the survival of his great-great-grandson. That is, he wouldn't have cared that Sirius died if only Sirius or Regulus had fathered a child on a pureblood witch before death. Carol: I don't see that. There's no indication that Sirius was ever interested in marrying and passing along his "pure" blood or his name, and if he had married, his wife probably would have been another Gryffindor, possibly a Muggleborn on principle. He certainly seems to consider only the people who have been burned off the tapestry as "decent": I can't see Phineas expecting him to follow the path of a "good" son as Regulus would have done in other circumstances. I think that despite himself, old Phineas feels affection for his prodigal great-great-grandson, and he seems shocked to hear that he's dead. When he goes off to look for him, he does not return, and Harry's imagined picture of him wandering from painting to painting in the house asking for him is poignant, IMO. He's angry later that Mundungus has dared to steal Black family heirlooms, but there's no indication that his indignation is not as much for Sirius himself as for the Black family heritage, both of which have been dishonored by Mundungus's thievery. It's all in how you read it, of course, but I saw Phineas's departure, leaving the portrait without even asking DD's leave, as affection and the denial he would feel on hearing on the death of someone close to him (even though he was dead himself and only a portrait). I liked him for it, and I don't even care for Sirius (who would, at a guess, have died a bachelor, anyway--had he survived the MoM, he'd probably have been killed in the Battle of Hogwarts). > Carol earlier: > << Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" stories, too, and reasons why, unlike Draco, they chose not to join the DEs >> > Catlady: > In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to the recollection that the DE team in the Department of Mysteries left his wounded father to die or be captured and put in Azkaban. Carol again: I always wondered if he learned that story. Who would tell him? We do hear in HBP that his father is in Azkaban, but nothing after that. Where was he during DH? He may have been at that table at the Malfoys, but Theo definitely wasn't. > Catlady: > As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had written and deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco converse while Nott Sr is visiting Malfoy Sr. She stated that "Together these two Death Eaters' sons discuss Dumbledore's regime at Hogwarts and Harry Potter, with all sorts of stories that the Death Eaters tell about how this baby boy survived the Dark Lord's attack." I don't think there's anything to indicate that they were debating whether the Dark Lord's return would be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con) but I'm under the impression that some fans think that was the conversation, indicating that Theo disliked the DE thing even before his father was wounded. Carol: All we know is that it would have had to occur before the battle at the DoM in OoP, that Theo was a loner but did associate with Draco briefly in both OoP and HBP after their fathers were arrested, and that he was rejected as a member of Slughorn's Slug Club because his father was a DE. Not much to go on. And yet he clearly didn't become a DE and he isn't mentioned along with Crabbe and Goyle as Crucioing fellow students. I'd really like to know what became of Theo, and who took care of him while his father was in Azkaban since he would have been only about sixteen, perhaps still fifteen, at the time and he was already motherless. Altogether, lost potential, a story like Dean Thomas's that was abandoned because it didn't fit with the focus on Harry. I really hope that she publishes that chapter and any other background she has on Theo. (If she says that he joined the DEs, I'll just cease to believe anything she says offpage.) Carol earlier: > << We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see again and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with Dolores Umbridge. >> > Catlady: > I was certain that Umbridge was lying about being related to the Selwyns. If the locket had had a different letter on it, she would have chosen a different Pureblood family to pretend to be related to. Of course, my track record suggests that I'm wrong and even Umbridge tells the truth. > Anyway, I have been unable to get my act together to make a timeline of when in the events of OOP Umbridge acquired the locket, and did it co-incide with a distinct increase in her nastiness? Carol again: Regarding the timeline, the robbery occurs in HBP shortly before Mundungus shows up with the silver cups and so forth outside the Hog's Head. The incident occurs just before the Christmas holidays in Harry's sixth year ("Silver and Opals"). Umbridge could not have taken the locket until some time later--so no effect on her nastiness. The whole of OoP features the pre-locket Umbridge. Regarding the Selwyn connection: I don't think that Umbridge is a pure-blood (that cardigan is just to Muggleish), but she's probably a Half-Blood who would make the most of her Pure-blood connections. Considering that she's working with Yaxley, I don't think she could have claimed a connection to Selwyn if she didn't have one. The "S" on the locket would have been a convenient way to exploit that and part of what attracted to the locket. (That the "S" stands for "Selwyn" is obviously a lie from our standpoint as readers, but who in the WW, other than Harry and Co., could have known or proven or cared to prove that the story was false?) Umbridge ends up with Mad-eye Moody's magical eye. How did she get it? It makes sense to me that she really did have a connection with the DE Selwyn, who persuaded the Dark Lord that it would make a useful addition to dear cousin Dolores's office in the new Muggle-born Registration department (or whatever it was called). At any rate, I can think of no other way that she could have obtained the eye, so a connection between Umbridge and the DE Selwyn (who seems to be introduced for no other reason though he appears again in the Lovegood chapter) makes sense to me. Or maybe the locket added to her powers of persuasion and she requested it of LV herself, but that seems unlikely in the extreme. Carol, mostly speculating throughout this post From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Oct 7 02:15:50 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:15:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0710061915y769f5e53g18c6d21c115925f0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177787 Betsy Hp: The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione Lynda: Loyalty to Hermione? Or was it making a choice to support Umbridge and the Ministry using her mother as an excuse rather than to stand up against the Ministry, which she knew the DA was all about? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 03:55:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 03:55:31 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore // Cunning in Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177788 zgirnius: > Pureblood supremacy was championed by Salazar Slytherin, and more > recently by Tom Riddle and his followers. It is not, however, a > selection criterion for Slytherin House, unless the Hat has > consistently forgotten to mention this fact in all its songs. It is > just an idea with some support in wizarding society broadly, which > has historically received more support and emphasis in that house. > Looking down on all members of the house is not the same as > repudiating the pureblood ideology, any more than looking down on > white Southerners in the US would have been a repudiation of racism > after the Civil War. Jen: Most of what you said I agree with, particularly the fact that the 6-7 prominent Slytherins in Harry's year don't have to be a representative sample of all Slytherins. To back that up, we know Slughorn was Head of House for many years, and according to DD, he had an 'uncanny knack for choosing those who would go on to become outstanding in their various fields.' (HBP, chap 4) Those students, still considered cream of the crop years later by Dumbledore, didn't go on to become DEs because Riddle's group were the first, the 'forerunners of the DEs.' The only thing I really question is this bit in the OOTP Sorting song: 'We'll teach those whose ancestry is purest' doesn't sound like pure-blood supremacy so much as setting up the conditions for it. So whenever the Sorting Hat is placed on the head of a child whose family has drilled into him/her how important their pure blood is, the hat sees it ('there's nothing hidden in your head' PS) and will place them in Slytherin unless asked otherwise (my conjecture there). Or at least it won't place the child in some other house if he desperately wants to be in Slytherin so as not to mingle with those of 'inferior' blood. Hmm, not sure where I'm going with this exactly. I suppose I'm curious what others think about that particular phrase? Also, re: cunning, Dumbledore praises Draco for outsmarting him when he finds a way to let the DEs into Hogwarts. He also praises Snape as the only person he would entrust with the job of fooling Voldemort. I read those moments as high praise for cunning and ambition in Slytherins. In addition, Regulus exhibited bravery to cross Voldemort like he did; the plan itself can't be called brave though, it required ambition and cunning to carry out imo ('crafty, wily, dexterous, involving keen insight or trickery' according to my dictionary). Jen From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 03:15:54 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 03:15:54 -0000 Subject: Harrry Potter and The Deathly Hollows: ie Dumbledore and Severus Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177789 Okay, in the final book we have all come to the conclusion of why Professor Dumbledore choose to believe and trust so much in Professor Snape. He was dying and he gave Snape the perfect way to keep in Lord Voldemorts good graces by allowing him to kill Dumbledore himself, right. But now we see in the end of the book, the problem with Harry was only because he hated Harry's father so much, because he felt his father is who cost him his precious Lily. Unfortunately and until it was too late to be taken back, he made decisions that ruined the life he had thought he had chosen on his own. I have seen all of your posts saying that slytherin was the evil in the book, no it just represented all the evil thought in the book so it made it easier for the other houses to lay blame when something did not go right. It was a case of mistaken identity. Yes Slytherin would not teach the witches and Wizards who were of mixed blood, but I do think he was too vain to honestly look and see that in some way it had to come full circle. Witches and Warlocks and Wizards had to have married outside their species to continue or else they would have eventually died out. For Slytherin and so many of the Wizarding families to feel that way was obsolete thinking and had therefore led to their thinking that Lord Voldemort was the only way. Professor Dumbledore's main mistake was he allowed his pride and his feelings to get in the way. Had he not I really believe maybe Harry would have better prepared at what he was to face in his life. (It made for great storylines do not get me wrong) Where professor Snape came is was he had so rigidly believed that Wiches and Wizards were so strong they had nothing to gain from mortals. He soon decided that his rush to judgement made in haste of feelings is what ultimately destroyed his life and therefore he spent the rest of it trying to make up for the dreadful decisions he had made. So where Dumbledore had been wrong to do what he done in his youth he spent his life making up for all that he done to prove to himself that he was worthy to thought of so highly. He was constanly at war with his inner feelings. So indeed he was a good guy in the end. Professor Snape had the same things going on in his life but not to the degree Professor Dumbledore did. While he only felt responsble for his precious Lily's death, he proved his life to show he was trustful and deserving to be allowed in to Hogwarts and that he deserved to be known as a good person. He was in the end a good person. He was a good person when Lily died. He made choices that were not the best but he spent the rest of his life trying to be a better person. Dumbldore's pride and mysteries of how he chose to do things led to several deaths in the end becasue he did not choose to divulge full truths. He decided that the little half truths which would make him look better to Harry and his friends was the best way. But it lead only to more questions and made the whole thing more immensely difficult. Dumbloredore was not perfect but he tried to be as ideally perfect as anyone could be and that was his ultimate downful, his pride was too much to ask for help from his friends when there was time enough to fix it the first time. Amanda Davis From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 05:35:09 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:35:09 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177790 zgirnius: > > JKR: But they're not all ??? don't think I don't take your point, but ??? > we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all there ??? > you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of Death > Eaters' children. They are a small fraction of the total Slytherin > population. I'm not saying all the other Slytherins are adorable, but > they're certainly not Draco, they're certainly not, you know, Crabbe > and Goyle. They're not all like that, that would be too brutal for > words, wouldn't it? > Prep0strus: I take your point, and hers, but then I think she failed even more at her objective. She can say they're not all like that, but why didn't she show us any who weren't? That is way more powerful to me. First, even here she says, 'i'm not saying all the other Slytherins are adorable', but couldn't some of them be adorable? I mean, there are adorable people out there, and they should be split up amongst the houses as well. A lot of people put forth the argument that we haven't seen ALL the Slytherins, and it stands to reason that some of the others must be nice or kind or not selfish or not bigoted or whatever. And that's fine, but in a creative work, never to be shown that, I don't think that it's obvious we should assume it. I think we all thought there was more to Slytherin, but if she never ever gives it to us... we're assuming things about the world with no evidence. That's why the 'one good Slytherin' has such a powerful impact in these discussions (and why everyone then throws forth their own 'one good Slytherin' - I've already conceded there are Slytherins that are 'good' but none I think are nice or likable, so it doesn't work for me), because it's in seeing those few characters that break the mold we've been shown that allows me to imagine a world in which more Slytherins are likable good people. But she was never able to stretch that mold more than allowing some of them to be 'not evil', which just doesn't cut it for me. > > zgirnius: > The idea that Slytherin has something positive to contribute > is "Dumbledoresque". Whatever one may think of the character post-DH, > pre-DH this is the character she called an "epitome of good". So it > seems to me she is endorsing this position regarding the houses as > morally correct (if idealistic). And, returning to the books, which is > what interests me, this is what I see in DH. Evidence, long kept from > us, of the *correctness* of the view that Slytherin, too, has much we > can value, through showing us more about the usual Slytherin suspects > and revealing their strenghts along with the flaws that have been > showcased all along. > Prep0strus: I'm curious (and not even in a sarcastic way) of what you think Slytherin 'strengths' are. Because my impression that if a Slytherin acts in a way that is good, it is because he is showing traits of another house. Slughorn's bravery at the end of DH. Snape's bravery throughout. Draco's (and Regalus with Kreacher) loyalty to his family could be considered a Hufflepuffian trait. I still roll my eyes at the idea of 'cunning' even being a trait, because it's just a word for clever that contains a negative connotation so JKR can heap on the nasty insinuations, and Ravenclaw is already 'clever' with 'wit', so I don't really see what the Slytherins are getting. And, really, I don't see that 'cunning' in action all that much. I guess Snape being able to keep his secret from Voldmort must have taken some cunning. But really, I don't see where being pureblooded or having unchecked ambition - the traits really associated with Slytherin - came across as a strength anywhere in the books. zgirnius: > Pureblood supremacy was championed by Salazar Slytherin, and more > recently by Tom Riddle and his followers. It is not, however, a > selection criterion for Slytherin House, unless the Hat has > consistently forgotten to mention this fact in all its songs. It is > just an idea with some support in wizarding society broadly, which has > historically received more support and emphasis in that house. Prep0strus: The final song contains the phrases: Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those Whose ancestry is purest." and For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him, It is, in fact, THE selection criteria, as this song is the one that most specifically talks about how selection was done, just as Griffindor takes those with brave deeds to their name, Ravenclaw takes those with the sharpest mind, and Hufflepuff takes the ignominious 'rest'. It's clear the hat doesn't always precisely follow these guidelines, having taken Snape and Riddle into Slytherin (not to mention Peter into Griffindor), but they are clear criteria set forth by the song. zgirnius: Looking > down on all members of the house is not the same as repudiating the > pureblood ideology, any more than looking down on white Southerners in > the US would have been a repudiation of racism after the Civil War. > Prep0strus: But it's the difference between the real world and a fake world. We KNOW in the real world there are more shades, more layers, more complexities - we know there are good and bad people in varying mixtures. I think the Harry Potter world is less easy to define as indefinable, if that makes any sense at all. It is possible for an author to create a world in which a group of people truly are bad in every single way, and though this could not happen in the real world, in the book, it would be so. For six books I thought the Harry Potter world was more complex, that there was more to Slytherin and the world as a whole. But after DH, with all the canon in, JKR has not given examples of good, nice, admirable Slytherins. She has not shown a world in which evil is balanced between people, but one in which it is heavily tilted in one direction. Which is why I felt she had simply loaded onto Slytherin all the traits she finds most reprehensible. It's harder to make that argument with the words you've quoted in which she says there is more to them. It baffles me, because if that's how she felt, why didn't she write a hat song that described traits she might actually display as positive? Why didn't she have characters who could be more than just 'good', but actually kind or likable? Slytherin still comes off as the house of prejudice, the house with a proclivity for evil, and the house of general unpleasantness. And it was entirely her choice not to give us any more than that. I love the idea of Shacklebolt being Slytherin, or Madame Pince. Or all the possibilities that came with Dumbledore's support of all houses and the hat suggesting unity. But it wasn't shown. It's an argument that goes in circles - we each see what we see, I guess. And then, we make our own judgments on it - there are people who agree with me on what JKR put forth, and then have an entirely different analysis and opinion on it, and then there are people who totally don't see what I see, but somehow manage to come to more similar conclusions to mine. All I can say is that, for myself, she created a world in which I thought I would be shown there was something worthwhile about Slytherin, and then I wasn't. And now matter how I look at the story, I can't see anything but an unpleasant dislike when it comes to the ideals and people of Slytherin House. And I don't feel sorry for Slytherins either. But I do, a bit, for myself and other readers. Because I was expecting a little more. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 7 06:21:14 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:21:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47087ADA.1090206@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177791 > zgirnius: > Rowling has spoken extensively on her intentions regarding Slytherin > House, and her statements seem inconsistent with your theory on what > she intends. Personally, I prefer to read a book, see what it says, and > decide what it means without either peculating what the author > intended, or relying on her statements to decide what the book means. The statements many of us have latched onto - which, i can't find right now - are those of her being "shocked" that people in RL identify with Slytherin as the house they would be in / want to be in. -- Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 7 13:57:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:57:44 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177792 > Prep0strus: > I take your point, and hers, but then I think she failed even more at > her objective. She can say they're not all like that, but why didn't > she show us any who weren't? Pippin: Perhaps she wants to show us that when you're getting your information through distorted media, being a liberal requires as much faith as any religion that asks you to believe in the invisible. When the reporter is biased, the media will reflect that. If you only knew about black people from the newspapers I read in my youth, you would think they only existed to cause trouble -- which is much the impression Harry and the narrator give you of Slytherin House. Harry doesn't *notice* the Slytherins when they're being good, and it suits JKR's purpose not to contradict that impression except in subtle ways, like having some Slytherins stand to honor Harry, or coo over the baby unicorns. Theodore Nott never does anything obnoxious, and so from Harry's pov he barely exists. random832: The statements many of us have latched onto - which, i can't find right now - are those of her being "shocked" that people in RL identify with Slytherin as the house they would be in / want to be in. Pippin: Somebody may have picked up a Quick Quotes Quill by mistake . If the quote about identifying (actually, "feel their spiritual home") is the one about her visit to a chatroom, the word she used was 'concerned' and the whole passage is broadly tongue-in-cheek anyway. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=63 Pippin From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 7 13:47:58 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:47:58 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177793 > Prep0strus: > I'm curious (and not even in a sarcastic way) of what you think > Slytherin 'strengths' are. Because my impression that if a Slytherin > acts in a way that is good, it is because he is showing traits of > another house. Slughorn's bravery at the end of DH. Snape's bravery > throughout. Draco's (and Regalus with Kreacher) loyalty to his family > could be considered a Hufflepuffian trait. I still roll my eyes at > the idea of 'cunning' even being a trait, because it's just a word for > clever that contains a negative connotation so JKR can heap on the > nasty insinuations, and Ravenclaw is already 'clever' with 'wit', so I > don't really see what the Slytherins are getting. And, really, I > don't see that 'cunning' in action all that much. I guess Snape being > able to keep his secret from Voldmort must have taken some cunning. > But really, I don't see where being pureblooded or having unchecked > ambition - the traits really associated with Slytherin - came across > as a strength anywhere in the books. Celoneth: I don't get why cunning and ambition are bad traits. I've certainly never seen them as such. In other great works of literature, the cunning and ambitious characters are the ones that in the end accomplish the most good and are the most interesting. Great strategists have to be cunning and ambitious and through those traits they are able to accomplish things effectively. Cleverness is not a good form of cunning, someone may be clever but useless or use their cleverness for bad things. I think the Lovegoods are a perfect example, they are clever, they take time to learn all they can and pursue their lifelong dreams of discovering something that no one believes in - not a bad thing, but doesn't really help anyone that much. I don't see loyalty as a Hufflepuff trait - Slytherins seem to be just as loyal as all the others (except for Ravenclaws who don't seem very loyal at all). Slughorn's decision, imo, to stay at the end I don't really see as bravery but choosing the path that will lead to most benefit, as was Snape's decision - he chose to risk his life day after day, because to him avenging Lily, redeeming himself and getting revenge on Voldemort was a something worth pursuing. I see it as a sort of reasoned bravery/reasoned loyalty, in comparision to the reckless bravery/unquestioning loyalty of Gryffindors which, as we see with the Marauders, leads to disaster. Unchecked ambition doesn't lead to anything good, neither does unchecked bravery. I think too much of any trait is potentially bad and we see that in the books. But ambition is not a bad thing - one can have ambition to do good as well as bad. I agree that there aren't as many examples of cunning behaviour as I'd have liked - apart from Snape and Dumbledore, but the book is written from a Gryffindor perspective (Harry and Dumbledore's mostly) and because of this we see an emphasis on bravery where other traits would apply just as well. The pureblood thing I think has become historically inapplicable as we see half-bloods in Slytherin house. I see Slytherin as a very paranoid man - with a lot of mistrust of muggles that I think might have been historically appropriate(although he did go way overboard) with the strength of the medieval theocracy and with it a labeling of magic as evil and the active persecution of anything resembling magic - of course this over time evolves into a bigoted view of muggleborns but not confined to Slytherin house alone. > Prep0strus: > But it's the difference between the real world and a fake world. We > KNOW in the real world there are more shades, more layers, more > complexities - we know there are good and bad people in varying > mixtures. I think the Harry Potter world is less easy to define as > indefinable, if that makes any sense at all. It is possible for an > author to create a world in which a group of people truly are bad in > every single way, and though this could not happen in the real world, > in the book, it would be so. I think much JRK's appeal is that she creates a real world in the HP universe. All the characters are flawed - no one (barring Voldemort/Bellatrix/Dobbt) is completely good or bad. We see plenty of bad thing done all around - not confined to Slytherin house, we see plenty of nasty things done by Gryffindors/Slytherins/Hufflepuffs. The Ministry does as much evil as the Death Eaters. The lack of a good Slytherin that's Harry's age is regrettable, but again I believe that the book is written from a Gryffindor perspective, that has a historical rivalry with Slytherin. And its not like we see many Ravenclaws/Hufflepuffs/Gryffindors outside of Harry's perspective. I think its interesting also that the emphasis on house division seems to disappear once characters become adults. We see very few adult characters that reference their house apart from Harry's family, heads of houses and Voldemort who is obsessed with being Slytherin's heir. We don't know what houses Kingsley or Umbridge or Fudge or most other adult characters were in - nor can we figure it out by their behaviour. We don't even know what house most DEs were in apart from those that went to school with Snape. Adult characters don't put much emphasis on their house divisions either, some have their preferences but it seems to be just wanting their kid to be in their alma mater. So as divisive as Hogwarts is, I think it goes away as kids become adults and realise that there's more to life than what house you're sorted in. Celoneth From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 14:13:16 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:13:16 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: <47087ADA.1090206@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > > zgirnius: > > Rowling has spoken extensively on her intentions regarding Slytherin > > House, and her statements seem inconsistent with your theory on what > > she intends. Personally, I prefer to read a book, see what it says, and > > decide what it means without either peculating what the author > > intended, or relying on her statements to decide what the book means. > > The statements many of us have latched onto - which, i can't find right > now - are those of her being "shocked" that people in RL identify with > Slytherin as the house they would be in / want to be in. > -- > Random832 > >Pippin: >Somebody may have picked up a Quick Quotes Quill by mistake . lizzyben: Since I posted that, I thought I should include the link: JKR's dismay at favourite fansite Slytherins - "JKR's website has a 'fansite of the month' slot where she praises various HP fansites she likes. The funny thing is, both the ones she'd admired so far are moderated and/or created by people who identify as Slytherins. She confesses herself disturbed - indeed 'shocked' by this. She likes these site-moderators - even calls them 'my kind of people' for their thoroughness - but claims not to understand why they are interested in Slytherin House." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100012 This is from a HPfGU post; I can't confirm or deny it beyond that. But it does seem consistent w/her other quote about being "concerned" that some people self-identify as Slytherins. lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 14:59:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:59:52 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177795 > Prep0strus: > I take your point, and hers, but then I think she failed even more at > her objective. zgirnius: I don't doubt it . It worked for me. > Prep0strus: > But she was never able to stretch > that mold more than allowing some of them to be 'not evil', which just > doesn't cut it for me. zgirnius: Yes, I realize that. To me, Snape's a lot more than 'not evil'. > Prep0strus: > I'm curious (and not even in a sarcastic way) of what you think > Slytherin 'strengths' are. Because my impression that if a Slytherin > acts in a way that is good, it is because he is showing traits of > another house. zgirnius: This is all happening in the context of a war between a good and evil side. Anyone who is not hiding under a table is going to exhibit courage. Luna shows it too. Prep0strus: > I still roll my eyes at > the idea of 'cunning' even being a trait, because it's just a word for > clever that contains a negative connotation so JKR can heap on the > nasty insinuations, and Ravenclaw is already 'clever' with 'wit', so I > don't really see what the Slytherins are getting. zgirnius: An awesome dictionary definition was supplied yesterday by Jen Reese. I repeat it here: ('crafty, wily, dexterous, involving keen insight or trickery' according to my dictionary). This is different from 'intelligent'. > Prep0strus: > I guess Snape being > able to keep his secret from Voldmort must have taken some cunning. zgirnius: Faint praise. > Prep0strus: > But really, I don't see where being pureblooded or having unchecked > ambition - the traits really associated with Slytherin - came across > as a strength anywhere in the books. zgirnius: Purebloodedness is not a strength. Though arguably the family loyalty some pureblood Slytherins exhibit to their pure families is distinct from Hufflepuff loyalty. Ambition I agree is not shown in a positive light in the series, at least not in any of the Slytherin characters. I think some of the Gryffs may have it and direct it positively, though. (Hermione, SPEW, and her career in Magical Law, for example). > Prep0strus: > The final song contains the phrases: > > Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those > Whose ancestry is purest." > > and > > For instance, Slytherin > Took only pure-blood wizards > Of great cunning, just like him, zgirnius: That makes purity of blood a selection criterion. Not a belief in the superiority of pureblood wizards. > Prep0strus: > It is possible for an > author to create a world in which a group of people truly are bad in > every single way, and though this could not happen in the real world, > in the book, it would be so. zgirnius: Sure, it is possible. It is my opinion, however, that this was not Rowling's intent as expressed in her interviews, and not what she wrote either. > Prep0strus: > But after DH, with all the canon in, JKR has not given > examples of good, nice, admirable Slytherins. zgirnius: In your opinion. But yeah, I think the facts are all on the table, and we just put them together in different ways. From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 15:11:22 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:11:22 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <2795713f0710061915y769f5e53g18c6d21c115925f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. > Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that > student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione > > Lynda: > Loyalty to Hermione? Or was it making a choice to support Umbridge and the > Ministry using her mother as an excuse rather than to stand up against the > Ministry, which she knew the DA was all about? > > Lynda Steph It's definitely not loyalty to Hermione, or even Harry. It's loyalty to the cause of fighting Voldemort that Marietta violated. In Hermione's little speech in the Hog's Head (US paperback p. 339) she calls what Umbridge is teaching them "rubbish" and that they need to "take matters into their own hands ... because Lord Voldemort's back." By the way, in reading the passage again, I noticed that another of the participants in the D.A. is Susan Bones, whose aunt is Madam Bones, a member of the Wizengamot. There's another student who was also in a tight spot due to a family member working for the Ministry. That's even leaving aside Ron, of course. And speaking of which, JKR also didn't drop the whole issue of Marietta being in a tight place because of her mother. In fact, she used it as an example of doing the right thing even when it might make you uncomfortabl to do so. Here's the passage from OOtP (US paperback ps. 636-637): "...Cho came hurrying up to him. "'Over here,' said Harry, glad of a reason to postpone his meeting with Snape. (superfluous stuff snipped) 'Are you OK? Umbridge hasn't been asking you about the D.A., has she?' 'Oh no,' said Cho hurriedly. 'No, it was only...Well, I just wanted to say...Harry, I never dreamed Marietta would tell....' 'Yeah, well,' said Harry moodily. He did feel Cho might have chosen her friends a bit more carefully. It was small consolation that the last he had heard, Marietta was still up in the hospital wing and Madam Pomfrey had not been able to make the slightest improvement to her pimples. 'She's a lovely person, really,' said Cho, 'she just made a mistake--' Harry looked at her incredulously. 'A lovely person who made a mistake? She sold us all out, including you!' 'Well...we all got away, didn't we?' said Cho pleadingly. 'You know, her mum works for the Ministry, it's really difficult for her--' 'Ron's dad works for the Ministry too!' Harry said furiously. 'And in case you hadn't noticed, he hasn't got "sneak" written across his face--'" They're all trying to fight against Voldemort. I'm not saying that there doesn't appear to be a slight cult of personality around DD, but because of what he represents, not him personally. The Ministry is pushing loyalty to it (and more specifically to Fudge) as Fudge and others are refusing to see that Voldemort is back - they're in total denial. It's easier for them to write off DD (and therefore Harry) as crackpots. If Marietta disapproved of what the D.A. was doing in the first place, she should never have joined. She can't use her mother's position at the Ministry as an excuse for going to Umbridge about the D.A. Hermione's jinx probably was a bit extreme, but Marietta did deserve to have been exposed in some way. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 16:03:41 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:03:41 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177797 > zgirnius: > Purebloodedness is not a strength. Though arguably the family > loyalty some pureblood Slytherins exhibit to their pure families is > distinct from Hufflepuff loyalty. Ambition I agree is not shown in a > positive light in the series, at least not in any of the Slytherin > characters. I think some of the Gryffs may have it and direct it > positively, though. (Hermione, SPEW, and her career in Magical Law, > for example). > > Prep0strus: But this was my question. You said DH revealed Slytherin strengths. And if pureblooded isn't a strength, and if ambition wasn't shown as a strength, that leaves only cunning. And the only Slytherin character to have potentially shown cunning (which, I still believe carries a negative connotation along with its strict dictionary denotation, especially as several of the dictionary definitions I perused associated it with 'deceipt') is Snape. And Snape, as praised by Dumbledore (and through him, possibly JKR), is suggested to that perhaps he was sorted too soon. That his good qualities made him a candidate for a better house than Slytherin, which in turn implies again that his strengths are not 'Slytherin strengths'. Random832 The statements many of us have latched onto - which, i can't find right now - are those of her being "shocked" that people in RL identify with Slytherin as the house they would be in / want to be in. -- Prep0strus: And I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, however the true quote comes out. Weeks ago I posted all the relevant quotes from Sorting Hat songs that affected me. There's many many fluctuating posts on Slytherin, Slytyherin characters, Slytherin ideals. I can't imagine wanting to identify with the house because while the hat describes the other houses in a positive or neutral manner, Slytherin is described negatively. When other houses have a preponderance of good, likable characters, Slytherin has an overwhelming majority of evil, nasty characters. And even the characters shown best are not shown positively. Snape, while brave and good, is also mean, bitter, petty, cruel, and emotionally stunted. Slughorn while never having become evil, is cowardly, sycophantic, gluttonous, and discriminatory. Etc. It is the house where bigotry and hate seem most ingrained and accepted. When every character she shows is shown in a negative light, I don't know why anyone would want to associate themselves with that house. I have a difficult time identifying myself with any of the houses, but so negative are the associations with Slytherin, I know it's not that. Pippin: Perhaps she wants to show us that when you're getting your information through distorted media, being a liberal requires as much faith as any religion that asks you to believe in the invisible. When the reporter is biased, the media will reflect that. If you only knew about black people from the newspapers I read in my youth, you would think they only existed to cause trouble -- which is much the impression Harry and the narrator give you of Slytherin House. Harry doesn't *notice* the Slytherins when they're being good, and it suits JKR's purpose not to contradict that impression except in subtle ways, like having some Slytherins stand to honor Harry, or coo over the baby unicorns. Theodore Nott never does anything obnoxious, and so from Harry's pov he barely exists. Prep0strus: That's an interesting theory. I, for one, do not believe the books are that deep. If that were the case, I would think that by the end of the series Harry's pov would have adjusted enough for us to see past his filter and understand the truth of the world. For her not to do that makes this an attempt at a much more cryptic piece of literature, and I just don't believe it's there. By the same token, it's why I disagree with those that feel what she has created is a terrible world in which Slytherins are biased against and Griffindors are terrible and all that, because I still don't think the books are that deep. I think, in the end, the books are much more on a level for children than I had expected early on. I think it is good vs. bad. I think the way so much is 'unfair' for Harry is a very childlike conceit, but true for the book. I think what we see is what we get, and having to invent things we haven't seen, and pretend they must be something else just isn't warranted. I have to go by what I was presented. If there was more, it should have been presented in some form. Besides, it's not all from Harry. The hat songs are verbatim, and I think it's very clear in the songs that one house is associated with negativity while the others aren't. And we're not missing any of it, like we could, theoretically have simply 'missed hearing about' all the non-Slytherin DEs and Slytherin Order members, and really sweet nice people from Slytherin. Celoneth: Unchecked ambition doesn't lead to anything good, neither does unchecked bravery. I think too much of any trait is potentially bad and we see that in the books. But ambition is not a bad thing - one can have ambition to do good as well as bad. Prep0strus: But unchecked is the kind of ambition Slytherins have - Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends. 'Use any means.' It's not, 'try their best' or 'work the hardest' That phrase has stuck with me. Especially when it's exactly what we see of Slytherins. Cheat, steal, kill - a Slytherin will do what he has to do to get what he wants. But the other traits are no more helpful in making the house equal. Cunning does not have to be bad, but it is associated with deceit, and I believe it has a negative connotation. Compared to Ravenclaw - wit, learning, cleverest, intelligence is surest... Slytherin always only gets 'cunning'. People have come up with some great synonyms for cunning and say, look, Slytherins could be this, too! But JKR never chose another word, even though Ravenclaws get the full spectrum of intelligence in their songs. So Slytherins get cunning, ambition associated with 'power-hungry Slytherin', and finally purebloodedness, which is not only not a strength, but is associated with the bigotry and hate described through all seven books. I don't think those compare to the list of adjectives Ravenclaw has - which could certainly be used for good or evil, but are generally positive traits to hold. Or to Hufflepuff, which, while being 'the rest' isn't so great, I would say 'hard working', 'just', and 'loyal' are all quite positive traits. Finally, Griffindors has the 'bravest', 'boldest', ones with 'brave deeds to their name', as well as 'daring', 'nerve', and 'chivalry'. And while bravery does not always have to be positive, I believe it, as opposed to cunning, carries a positive connotation. And chivalry surely also connotes goodness. Celoneth: The pureblood thing I think has become historically inapplicable as we see half-bloods in Slytherin house. I see Slytherin as a very paranoid man - with a lot of mistrust of muggles that I think might have been historically appropriate(although he did go way overboard) with the strength of the medieval theocracy and with it a labeling of magic as evil and the active persecution of anything resembling magic - of course this over time evolves into a bigoted view of muggleborns but not confined to Slytherin house alone. Prep0strus: It is confusing how Riddle and Snape got into the house, but the hat continues to sing about it in the song, and the members of the house continue to consider purity of blood a positive thing and mixed blood a negative thing. It's still a part of Slytherin identity, despite their failure to live up to their own standard. Besides, some must slip into every house - I see no courage in Peter. It doesn't change what the house represents. Celoneth:I think much JRK's appeal is that she creates a real world in the HP universe. All the characters are flawed - no one (barring Voldemort/Bellatrix/Dobbt) is completely good or bad. We see plenty of bad thing done all around - not confined to Slytherin house, we see plenty of nasty things done by Gryffindors/Slytherins/Hufflepuffs. The Ministry does as much evil as the Death Eaters. The lack of a good Slytherin that's Harry's age is regrettable, but again I believe that the book is written from a Gryffindor perspective, that has a historical rivalry with Slytherin. And its not like we see many Ravenclaws/Hufflepuffs/Gryffindors outside of Harry's perspective. Prep0strus: The problem is, we don't see many good things done by Slytherins. And, even when we do, those Slytherins are not likable people. Yes, it is through Harry's perspective, as many have said, but I believe that argument becomes weaker when the series has completed. If the point was that Harry's pov is flawed, shouldn't we, or he, learn that at some point, and with more than just realizing Snape is good? 'Cause I thought he was good anyway, but he still wasn't nice or kind or likable. It's not a lack of a good Slytherin that's Harry's age - it's a lack of a not-unpleasant Slytherin of ANY age that's the problem. Celoneth: I think its interesting also that the emphasis on house division seems to disappear once characters become adults. We see very few adult characters that reference their house apart from Harry's family, heads of houses and Voldemort who is obsessed with being Slytherin's heir. We don't know what houses Kingsley or Umbridge or Fudge or most other adult characters were in - nor can we figure it out by their behaviour. We don't even know what house most DEs were in apart from those that went to school with Snape. Adult characters don't put much emphasis on their house divisions either, some have their preferences but it seems to be just wanting their kid to be in their alma mater. So as divisive as Hogwarts is, I think it goes away as kids become adults and realise that there's more to life than what house you're sorted in. Prep0strus: Again, I guess I just disagree. The adult Slytherins we see are just as unpleasant as any kid Slytherins. If JKR wanted us to see that the differences don't matter as adults, then we would have heard the previous house affiliations of the people you mentioned, and others. Fudge could have been a not-brave Griffindor, Umbridge a not-just Hufflepuff, Kingsley, a noble Slytherin. But we didn't get those, and based on what we were shown, I have to assume Umbridge is Slytherin, Kingsley is Griffindor, and Fudge is... well, Fudge is pathetic. I have no idea what Fudge is. I'd never use those examples in an argument, because we don't know, of course, but I think if we DID know, the world would be clearer. I don't think we can assume that many unnamed Slytherins out there are great people, when we were never shown one who is. That's the leap I refuse to make. It's a work of fiction. The world is how it is presented, and in order to make that kind of assumption, I want to be shown in some fashion that it is likely. She had every opportunity to show Slytherins as more than simply selfish and unpleasant, and she took every opportunity to show, that no, they are all pretty much unlikable. They may not all be evil, but they're all still shown negatively. And that has way more effect on me than the idea that, yeah, well, probably there are some nice ones out there. Which is why I feel the real world is different from this created world. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 7 16:56:24 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Oct 2007 16:56:24 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/7/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1191776184.298.12091.m1@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177798 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 7, 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 17:11:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:11:09 -0000 Subject: Harry: "I WANT THE TRUTH!" (Was: Seeking the truth )--LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177799 > SSSusan: > What we discover in DH is a DD who has "a thing" about power, as in > a thing about a desire for power, a desire to be The One who calls > the shots, who decides what should be done, who determines who > should get the information ? and not just who but when, how and how > MUCH information. It really became clear to me that Harry's quest > for the whole truth really was tripped up very much by this trait of > DD's, and I really wanted to know: Who was right? Who was right > about just how much of The Truth Harry needed/deserved to know, and > about when he should know it? Jen: Thanks for collecting all this information and offering some very thoughtful questions, Susan. :) Thinking more about your comment above, I don't know if it was a thirst for power that led Dumbledore to withold information from Harry (and Snape) so much as the reason Aberforth mentioned in The Missing Mirror: "I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother's knee. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus...he was a natural." (p. 562, Am. Ed.) Dumbledore learned how to compartmentalize his life at an early age, hiding family secrets his mother didn't want discussed with the outside world, like the attack on Ariana & her resulting problems and the real reason behind Percival's attack on the Muggles. Later, he added immense guilt about Ariana's death to his list. This is somewhat speculative since it's not directly linked in the story, but Dumbledore's almost obsessive quest to defeat Voldemort seemed linked to his past with Grindelwald, his shame over waiting so long to take action. For all these reasons, I think of his secrecy/witholding of information as grounded in his psychology and history as much as his lust for power (and I could make a case that his need for power also stemmed from the powerlessness of the situation that the Dumbledores found themselves in with Ariana's attack & Percival's forced abandonment of the the family; these events likely fueled DD's interest in wizard dominance at any rate). Trauma can offer explanations but can't wholly justify actions though; there's still the question of whether witholding information from Harry was right. It made sense within the story for me that Dumbledore had taken time to learn about Voldemort and thus parceled out information to both Snape or Harry because Voldemort had access to both of their minds when he returned. And since I accept DD's explanation at the end of OOTP for why he didn't tell Harry 'everything,' the question for me is whether he was right to withold information from Harry once he knew Voldemort was practicing Occlumency against him. SSSusan: > Carol has talked about Harry's quest for the truth in terms of his > also being a Seeker. I admit that, although I am one who can see > Harry rather as Everyman on his Christian Journey (and, thus, *that* > kind of a Seeker), I haven't seen this particular final-book > searching & grasping for the truth in a Christian sense. > I see it as more of a pragmatic seeking, if that makes sense, rather > than any kind of Christian seeking of God's will or whatever. In a > way, I guess I see Harry's seeking for the whole truth as a personal > seeking ? some might call it even a selfish seeking, a personal > quest, while others might call it a sort of self-actualizing seeking > or as a means of more fully understanding what it is he `needs' to > do in order to make this more his OWN decision to do. Jen: Guess which one I think it is. I was looking for an old post the other day and ran across something I said that still holds true for me after DH: 'Just because there are some elements of classic stories to the books, it doesn't mean JKR is going for a classic tale along the lines of The Secret Garden, where the children grow to be better people in the sense of daily interactions with others. There are enough Jungian elements and alchemy elements to suggest JKR could be talking about the transformation of the Self as a whole rather than the elemental parts that make up a person [....] but Harry will finally be free to make choices from his authentic self as he sheds the self formed from the elements of Voldemort's action, Lily's sacrifice, the Maruader legacy and Dumbledore's plan.' Harry had to know the truth to find his authentic self IOW. ******************************************************************* "Could DD have let such things happen? ...Harry thought of Godric's Hollow, of graves DD had never mentioned there; he thought of mysterious objects left without explanation in Dumbledore's will, and a resentment swelled in the darkness. Why hadn't DD told him? Why hadn't he explained? Had DD actually cared about Harry at all? Or had Harry been nothing more than a tool to be polished and honed, but not trusted, never confided in?" [DH, US hardback, p. 177] SSSusan: > Wow. For me, these are The Big Questions. Why did DD withhold > some of these things? Why hadn't he shared more? Why did he once > tell Harry (at the end of OotP) that he needed to and would now > tell him *everything* and yet, so obviously at this point, ended up > telling him much less than everything? Did he keep things from > Harry for a good reason? DID he care about Harry? Was caring the > motivation for not telling him? Or was being in control, being the > one with the power, what was motivating his telling and his not > telling? Did he TRUST Harry? Jen: I was surprised Harry felt Dumbledore should have told him about his personal life. They were linked by Godric's Hollow but their relationship wasn't particularly personal, not like father or grandfather and son. Even when Dumbledore expressed feelings for Harry at the end of OOTP, and Harry displayed searing grief about his death, their relationship was first and foremost Harry's unique connection with Voldemort and how Dumbledore could help Harry defeat him. I thought this omission was troublesome to Harry because he was already mad and hurt about Dumbledore. The idea of Harry and Dumbledore visiting the graves of their lost ones together struck me as more emotional than rational. lealess: > Trust is also a key to the story. Trust is faith. Did Dumbledore > have faith in his followers, enough to give them the truth, to give > them the tools they would need to defeat Voldemort? I think > Dumbledore expected his followers, especially Harry, to find the > truth within themselves, to just *know* it, to reject the path of > intellect and ambitious effort and follow the simpler path of faith > and following the word of God (or Dumbledore, in this case). In the > end, a Seeker can only rely on instinct to follow the movements of > the Snitch. Jen: I agree and disagree. :) Dumbledore had a hands-off strategy with most of his followers, which I intepreted as him not wanting their reliance to be only on him but each other. He encourages Harry's relationship with Ron/Hermione to that end. I agree that he wanted Harry to find truth within himself, come up with his own answers in DH particularly, because what Dumbledore believed Harry must do to defeat Voldemort required that Harry absolutely believe in what he was doing. For the same reason, Dumbledore doesn't withold the information about the Hallows from Harry because in the end it must be Harry's choice and not Dumbledore's. I believe that interpretation has back up in King's Cross: "But I should have died - I didn't defend myself! I meant to let him kill me!" "And that," said Dumbledore, "will, I think, have made all the difference." (p. 708, Am. ed.) Jen: I undertsood that moment to imply that the ancient magic wouldn't have worked if there was any trace of doubt or hesitation inside Harry. Whew, that's all I can come up with for my *first* post on this thread. Jen, who thought of the movie 'A Few Good Men' and the Jack Nicholson character Jessep screaming 'YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH' at Tom Cruise when she saw SSSusan's subject line. ;) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 18:44:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:44:06 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177800 > > Prep0strus: > > I take your point, and hers, but then I think she failed even more at > > her objective. She can say they're not all like that, but why didn't > > she show us any who weren't? > > Pippin: > Perhaps she wants to show us that when you're getting your > information through distorted media, being a liberal > requires as much faith as any religion that asks you to believe > in the invisible. When the reporter is biased, the media will > reflect that. If you only knew about black people from the > newspapers I read in my youth, you would think they only > existed to cause trouble -- which is much the impression > Harry and the narrator give you of Slytherin House.> Harry doesn't *notice* the Slytherins when they're being good, > and it suits JKR's purpose not to contradict that impression > except in subtle ways, like having some Slytherins stand to > honor Harry, or coo over the baby unicorns. Theodore Nott > never does anything obnoxious, and so from Harry's pov > he barely exists. Magpie: I don't think that works at all. We're not reading the newspaper, these aren't real people. We're reading about a world that is only created and exists within these pages. I don't believe this is just a case of Harry not noticing when Slytherins are being good. First, the narrator is not Harry, and second Harry *does* notice when they're being good. He also just sees right in front of him when they're being bad, which is most of the time. We saw some Slytherins stand to honor Harry and coo at baby unicorns--neither of those things says anything about their being good. They're following instructions of the headmaster in the first and liking cute animals in the second. We know the problem with Slytherins isn't that they are all DEs out to get Harry killed. She chose not to go beyond some of them toasting to Harry when the headmaster said to toast to Harry. They're not all bad. They are limited. I also don't see how that quote of JKR's doesn't back up Adam's impression rather than contradict it. She understands the logical conclusion of "why don't we get rid of Slytherin?" She says they're not all Draco--they never were. Then she says she's not saying they're adorable--isn't that just more of what we've already seen? She says they're not all bad, as we see in DH. That doesn't translate to me as her saying that there are some of them that are good on the level of, say, Neville--it seems like she's even clarifying that's not what she means when she says she's not saying they're adorable. Remember here's she's defending against their all being expelled or shot. In the books it seems to me Slytherin is 100% shown as worse than other houses (nobody could miss is), but they're not all bad, there are glimmers of hope in them that make them certainly not all Voldemort. It seems like that's what she's saying in her interview as well, which is why she can talk about the idea of house unity being a sort of dream the epitome of goodness might have, and a reason to keep around the "less noble qualities" of Slytherin in case things change, but can also make statements of concern about people identifying with Slytherins. There's certainly nothing I've ever heard her say in any interview that indicated this was really all a big test to see if readers knew to think they actually reading something more like a newspaper article that made Slytherins look bad and not a novel, which I think she would do if that were her point. Harry doesn't make up the bad things Slytherins are doing throughout the books. Look at the way she talked about and wrote SWM. Harry thinks Lily hates James, the narrator presents her insulting him. Yet I thought it was clear from the scene she already liked him, and when asked if Lily didn't hate James so how did they get together in an interview JKR said, "Did she really? You're a woman. You know what I'm talking about" or whatever. The one Slytherin qutoe where she says that they're not all bad isn't correcting somebody's bad impression, it's responding to the question of why she's put them there at all being logical. From the interviews I've read that's usually her way. I can't see how she'd be so coy about Slytherin to the point where the real house is invisible to the naked eye. Prep0strus: 'Use any means.' It's not, 'try their best' or 'work the hardest' That phrase has stuck with me. Especially when it's exactly what we see of Slytherins. Cheat, steal, kill - a Slytherin will do what he has to do to get what he wants. Magpie: Yes, Slytherins are far more usually associated with those bad parts of ambition and almost never with the good, positive parts of it. I would put forth Snape as the one Slyth character who seems to show the good side--talent and hard work--in his HBP textbook, however we know he wound up in the DEs and he's not ultimately positioned as a genius who made great innovations in Potions. When I think of the books I still think of the best examples of ambition coming from Gryffindor, just as the finest examples of cunning usually come from that house--that is, talent and hard work leading to honest success for a positive end, and cunning used for the same reason. Prep0strus: I don't think we can assume that many unnamed Slytherins out there are great people, when we were never shown one who is. That's the leap I refuse to make. It's a work of fiction. The world is how it is presented, and in order to make that kind of assumption, I want to be shown in some fashion that it is likely. She had every opportunity to show Slytherins as more than simply selfish and unpleasant, and she took every opportunity to show, that no, they are all pretty much unlikable. They may not all be evil, but they're all still shown negatively. And that has way more effect on me than the idea that, yeah, well, probably there are some nice ones out there. Which is why I feel the real world is different from this created world. Magpie: ITA. -m From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 7 18:33:58 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:33:58 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <2795713f0710061915y769f5e53g18c6d21c115925f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > The reason it struck me as odd is how it reflected on our heroes. > Hermione permanently marred the face of a fellow student because that > student showed more loyalty to her mother than towards Hermione > > Lynda: > Loyalty to Hermione? Or was it making a choice to support Umbridge and the > Ministry using her mother as an excuse rather than to stand up against the > Ministry, which she knew the DA was all about? > > Lynda > > Winterfell adds: < I agree that Marietta was using her mother as an excuse to not stand up against the ministry. Also, Hermione didn't permanently mar Marietta's face, the jinx did. It's a fine point, I agree, but if Marietta hadn't fulfilled the terms of the jinx, she never would have had her face marred. It's not like Hermione walked up to Marietta in the hallway and cast a spell on her directly to mar her face. Hermione had no way of knowing who if anyone would betray them, and it's that clear act of betrayal by Marietta (for whatever reason) that triggered the jinx's effects; not Hermione herself taking specific action against the student who caused the jinx to activate. It was a cause and effect jinx that was cast by Hermione. So yes, she is responsible for the ultimate outcome of the jinx's damage...but indirectly in relationship to Marietta. < Winterfell, who regrets what happened to Marietta but nonetheless believes it was deserved by her actions. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 7 19:59:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:59:51 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177802 > > Winterfell adds: > < I agree that Marietta was using her mother as an excuse to not stand up against the ministry. Magpie: I don't think we have any way of knowing this. It doesn't even really make sense to me. Marietta isn't called on to stand up to the Ministry. She could have just kept her mouth shut. This is all speculation, but I just don't see why she'd do what she did without having some actual reason to think she *should* do what she was doing. If she just didn't want to stand up to the Ministry she would have stayed silent. That seemed more like her style throughout. If we'd been shown she specifically feared something I might think otherwise. Winterfell: Also, Hermione didn't permanently mar Marietta's face, the jinx did. It's a fine point, I agree, Magpie: I think it's a "fine point" to the point of just being a lie. Hermione created the jinx, Hermione cast the jinx. This isn't an act of nature, it's something Hermione did and gets full responsibility for, imo. (For everything except Marietta telling, obviously, which was her choice without knowing the consequencs.) Winterfell: but if Marietta hadn't fulfilled the terms of the jinx, she never would have had her face marred. Magpie: So what? If Harry hadn't shown up in a prophecy Voldemort wouldn't have tried to kill him and his parents. That doesn't make it the prophecy's fault. (Similarly, imo it's wholely the Twins fault that Dudley's tongue swells up and not partially Dudley's for eating the piece of candy somebody left at his house, and wholely the Twins fault that Neville turns into a canary.) Winterfell: It's not like Hermione walked up to Marietta in the hallway and cast a spell on her directly to mar her face. Magpie: No, she walked up to her in the Hog's Head and gave her a paper to sign without telling her she was jinxing herself if she told about the study club she was joining. Whether one thinks the punishment was deserved to nor I don't see how Hermione isn't entirely in control of it. Winterfell: Hermione had no way of knowing who if anyone would betray them, and it's that clear act of betrayal by Marietta (for whatever reason) that triggered the jinx's effects; not Hermione herself taking specific action against the student who caused the jinx to activate. Magpie: Hermione herself did take specific action. She just did it before the fact so that she wouldn't have to find the person and do the punishment later. Winterfell: It was a cause and effect jinx that was cast by Hermione. So yes, she is responsible for the ultimate outcome of the jinx's damage...but indirectly in relationship to Marietta. > Winterfell, who regrets what happened to Marietta but nonetheless believes it was deserved by her actions. -m (who has no problem with bad consequences on Marietta for what she did, but thinks the punishment goes far beyond anything like justice or natural consequences, and is still surprised the book and author ultimately seem to see vengeance as a valuable end to itself so that the fact that Hermione's plan is useless as both a deterrant or a safety measure doesn't matter at all.) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 21:11:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:11:57 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177803 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Winterfell: > Hermione had no way of knowing who if anyone would betray them, and > it's that clear act of betrayal by Marietta (for whatever reason) > that triggered the jinx's effects; not Hermione herself taking > specific action against the student who caused the jinx to activate. Montavilla47: Not to dump on your point about Hermione, but the way you state this suddenly made me think about Dumbledore's defense of Snape in HBP. "He had no way of knowing how Lord Voldemort would interpret the prophecy--which family he would target..." (That's a paraphrase. I don't have the book in front of me.) Voldemort's interest in the Potters wasn't only triggered by Snape's telling him about the prophecy. They also qualified for it by defying him three times. Of course, they probably didn't know that they would invoke this prophecy by doing so. They may or may not have done part or all of the defying before Voldemort ever heard it. But then Marietta also didn't know that she'd be triggering a jinx by defying the D.A. She also didn't know that when she signed her name, she was signing up to break a Ministry law. > > Winterfell, who regrets what happened to Marietta but nonetheless > believes it was deserved by her actions. > > -m (who has no problem with bad consequences on Marietta for what she > did, but thinks the punishment goes far beyond anything like justice > or natural consequences, and is still surprised the book and author > ultimately seem to see vengeance as a valuable end to itself so that > the fact that Hermione's plan is useless as both a deterrant or a > safety measure doesn't matter at all.) ~Montavilla47 Who normally never uses these post-sigs, but wanted to add that JKR tends to invite these arguments by exaggerating the punishment on minor villains to the point that many readers start feeling sympathy instead of satisfaction. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 7 22:10:16 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:10:16 EDT Subject: Family and Other Loyalty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177804 Winterfell: Actually, Marietta is given what amounts to acne scars in the long run not for following the rules per se, but for betraying her schoolmates. I agree that it's a good thing that she has to hide her face from shame. She's earned that shame, but not primarily for not following rules, but for being a traitor. Betraying her fellow students had serious consequences that she should have considered before turning them in to Umbridge. Julie: I agree that Marietta received the scars for betraying her schoolmates. Also as far as the book--and JKR--are concerned, she earned her shame and her just punishment. JKR said as much when asked about the pustules (scars) in an interview, saying that she loathed a traitor, thus indicating that Marietta deserved no sympathy or "second chances" and that Hermione's action was neither wrong nor even extreme for the actual crime. That's fair enough BTW. That is how JKR feels about it. Accepted. It is just not how I feel about it, nor many other readers. Does it affect my enjoyment of the books? Minimally. I can envision the books having playing out with both Harry and Hermione being more sympathetic and forgiving than they turned out to be. But I also initially envisioned Dumbledore that way! Point is, there is nothing *wrong* with JKR writing her story this way; it is well within her rights as the storyteller. But there is also nothing wrong with some readers feeling uncomfortable with both Hermione and Harry's attitudes, or feeling that a 16 year old girl who was being pulled by opposing loyalties does deserve forgiveness and a true second chance. And there, in our individual assessments of whether the punishment fit the "crime" is where we will continue to disagree. >snip: > lizzyben goes on to write: > > I think there's a large element of "revenge fantasy" to the novels, > and that JKR has fun dishing out this revenge w/o always considering > the consequences & implications of it. Winterfell: While there are issues of revenge in the Harry Potter novels, there is absolutely no proof that JKR has "fun" dishing out this revenge w/o always considering the implications of such revenge. JKR has plot threads to further and I believe she fully knew the consequences & implications of what she wrote w/ regard to revenge. What motivated JKR to write what she did is known only by her unless she revealed her motivations in interviews. I just want to know what proof is there that JKR is having irresponsible fun when she is writing about revenge. Winterfell who thinks that JKR knows best why she writes what she does and not us readers. Julie: No doubt JKR does know best why she writes. But she has also TOLD us several times why she wrote the Harry Potter novels (for "herself" not to fit any preconceived notions of fantasy, or children's literature, or anything else.) Furthermore, she has pointed out her inspiration behind certain characters and events. Snape is based on a much-loathed professor who taught her and who refused her mother a job position. Lockhart is based on an unnamed real man she knew and disliked. Certain themes in the books were inspired by the death of her mother. JKR, like all writers, puts part of herself and her experiences into her stories. What's more, she's been quite up front about it. Revenge was her motivation with the characters of Snape and Lockhart, at least in part. So it is not exactly a crazy leap to assume a similar motive is at play with Marietta's story, among others. I previously suggested that JKR knew a "Marietta" at some point in her life, maybe in school. I knew a Marauder or two myself (being on the Snape side of them, though hardly to such a degree as Snape). It's a natural human trait to want revenge against people who've wronged you, *especially* if it happened when you were a teenager. Most of us don't actually put our desire for revenge into action of course, and wouldn't really want to. Unless we could do it in a manner that gives us the cathartic satisfaction of getting back at that person without having stooped to their level by actually harming said person. Such as writing it into a novel, for instance ;-) It also coud be JKR didn't know a Marietta, and didn't write her based on a school mate who betrayed JKR's trust or someone else's. But it is certainly a fair enough theory, based on other characters in the books who represent aspects of real people from JKR's life. As is theorizing where revenge fantasies may fit into the books (since Lockhart and Snape admittedly embody revenge fantasies against real people to some degree). Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Oct 7 22:16:17 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:16:17 -0000 Subject: FILK: This Year at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177805 This Year at Hogwarts (DH, Chap. 29) To the tune of One Night In Bangkok, from musical Chess by Benny Anderson, Bjorn Ulvaeus & Tim Rice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn4IqAlDdZY THE SCENE: The Room of Requirement, set up as a safe haven for Dumbledore's Army. NEVILLE, with the DA CHORUS, implore the Trio to assist him in freeing Hogwarts. NEVILLE: Hogwarts! Monumental trouble Where ev'ry new day the atrocities double The scum of the earth in a grand convergence Helped bring about this room's emergence Watch out! Walk the straight and narrow Or detention you'll get with sis and bro Carrow Dark Arts! They have no pretenses That they're teaching a thing but the worst offenses We've Gryffindor ? and Hufflepuffs ? and Ravenclaws- in this Room! DUMBLEDORE ARMY CHORUS: This year at Hogwarts we see Dark polluting Their blood is purer, but the pure ain't chaste Though Dumble's Army still goes on recruiting, If you should sign up, you'll be cruelly chased By their zeal to have us one and all erased. NEVILLE: They think that I hit the bottom Never did they reckon on the new Longbottom CHORUS: He has scars, he has welts, and his face is real puffy Who knew wimpy Neville would change to such a toughie? NEVILLE (modestly): Whaddya mean? You've seen Michael Corner, Seamus Finnegan, you've - CHORUS: Neville found this suite Requirement room where our choir's meant to meet NEVILLE: No sweat! `Cause I'm the son of Aurors Acquainted with the starkest of horrors I ain't Alecto's Muggle-Studies buddy .. CHORUS: This year at Hogwarts could make courage crumble If not for Neville who has pulled us through He's fighting Snapey, who's the anti-Dumble The foremost advocate of You-Know-Who We would love to drown him in a thick shampoo. NEVILLE: We all wanna see a contest Where the Chosen One will the Voldemort wand best You've got to stick around to Stick it to Voldy and Snapey in Round Two. We need you running this game, controlling it . No need to prove you've been hot You broke the bank to get into Gringotts Just let us know how we can aid you We are here to serve, don't be afraid to Or will you go back to Abby's bar, your tentings, your Shell Cottages .? CHORUS: This year at Hogwarts, counter-revolution Is what we're needing to set our school free We count on you to find us the solution Don't count us out account of secrecy Let the DA prove to you its loyalty This year at Hogwarts could see valor vanquished We need the Trio back here holding sway We're fighting Snapey, he's a bug we can squish If you're up to leaping, we'll provide the fray Listen, please, to Neville, don't turn us away. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 7 22:49:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:49:57 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177806 > Julie: > Point is, there is nothing *wrong* with JKR writing her story this way; it > is well > within her rights as the storyteller. But there is also nothing wrong with > some > readers feeling uncomfortable with both Hermione and Harry's attitudes, or > feeling that a 16 year old girl who was being pulled by opposing loyalties > does > deserve forgiveness and a true second chance. And there, in our individual > assessments of whether the punishment fit the "crime" is where we will > continue to disagree. Alla: Totally. As long as JKR **writing** the story this way is not made into some crazy, bizarre, evil POV, I totally understand yours. And of course everybody has a right to argue that JKR writing this story this way is evil, etc, it is just something that made me amazed and always will make me amazed. Because it is not as if the sixteen year old who made sure that the futures of so many of her classmates are at the mercy of evil person because of her just **has to** be forgiven and if she is not, it is so very strange. I am not replying just to you, but in general to the thread and even in general to Marietta issue. And yes, canon does not say that Marietta used her mother as excuse, but canon **says** that Marietta went to Umbridge, NOT to her mother and yes, that makes me think that Marietta using her mother as excuse is one of the valid possibilities. > Winterfell: While there are issues of revenge in the Harry Potter > novels, there is absolutely no proof that JKR has "fun" dishing out > this revenge w/o always considering the implications of such > revenge. Winterfell who thinks that JKR knows best why she writes what she > does and not us readers. > > > Julie: > No doubt JKR does know best why she writes. But she has also TOLD us > several times why she wrote the Harry Potter novels (for "herself" not to fit > any preconceived notions of fantasy, or children's literature, or anything > else.) > Furthermore, she has pointed out her inspiration behind certain characters > and > events. Snape is based on a much-loathed professor who taught her and who > refused her mother a job position. Lockhart is based on an unnamed real man > she knew and disliked. Certain themes in the books were inspired by the death > of her mother. > > JKR, like all writers, puts part of herself and her experiences into her > stories. > What's more, she's been quite up front about it. Revenge was her motivation > with the characters of Snape and Lockhart, at least in part. So it is not > exactly > a crazy leap to assume a similar motive is at play with Marietta's story, > among > others. Alla: Eh, not as far as I remember. JKR basing Lockhart on some real person and Snape as well at least in part? Sure, she did. JKR **writing** them as revenge and **enjoying** that revenge? Could we have quote, please? I mean, I wrote few weeks ago that I see nothing wierd if JKR when she thought of the people whom she partially based Snape on ( that teacher I mean) may not have warm and fuzzy feelings about him. And when she wrote a story and needed nasty teacher, she thought of that person. But that's not the argument,no? It seems that Lizzyben's argument is that JKR wrote the novel primarily **because** she wanted to exercise revenge on real people and yeah, I find this having no support, unless we claim to read JKR's mind or she says so in interviews. I say she wanted to write **nasty** characters - Snape and Lockhart and she wrote them. I do **not** know that she wrote them **because** she wanted to exercise revenge over real people. I mean, it is often happens that writer bases some qualities of their characters on the real people, often such characters are richer for that, no? Some of those characters are nasty. Does it mean that the authors who wrote villains and partially based them on real people wanted to exercise revenge on them? Or maybe they just **NEEDED** villains for the story, remembered some bad people in RL and used them partially as prototypes for those people? JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 7 23:49:40 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:49:40 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177807 > Betsy Hp: > Heh. To me the elephant in the room causing the dysfunction was > Lily's not very well hidden contempt for Snape. It was an ugly > relationship that any kid with healthy self-respect would have thrown > over. Pippin: Contempt? Ugly relationship? Where do you see the canon for this? I don't see anything ugly in their relationship apart from Snape's disguised anti-Muggle feelings until the post-prank memory, and at that time they are still "best friends." That means they were good friends for seven years, almost. Just as long as Harry Ron and Hermione (minus the epilogue of course.) Lily was a popular girl, according to Slughorn -- there was no reason for her to call Snape her best friend if she didn't genuinely like him. He does get all tongue-tied and red-faced whenever the conversation veers too close to his feelings for her, and he did follow her around before he found the nerve to start a conversation -- which makes him exactly like Harry with Cho. IOW, he's not being creepy, he's being a kid. I thought it was Snape's inability to recover from his grief that you found unhealthy. I see I misunderstood. Apparently you're seeing a whole masochistic self-hate thing going on which I'm missing completely. As far as I can see, no one in The Prince's Tale ever expresses any disgust for Snape except when he's actually said or done something which would be disgusting whoever did it, Slytherin or not. So what does it have to do with the Slytherin dynamic? > > >>Pippin: > > If it's Draco's soul that matters, and it's safe, what else needs to > > be done? Turn the boy into a cog in Dumbledore's plan? > > > > Betsy Hp: > I'm unclear as to how Draco being forced to torture people for > Voldemort makes his soul safe. And I'd have liked to see Draco play > a part in *Snape's* plan. Or Draco take action of any sort really. > Just one step so he can finally get off that Tower. A teacher who > cared about him would have tried to help Draco do that. Pippin: I...what? Draco did get off the tower. Literally, and figuratively. He was no longer being ordered to kill and so tear his soul. It's murder that tears the soul, Slughorn is quite clear about that. It's of a different order than other crimes, torture included apparently. Draco was forced to perform cruciatus curses and so were all the other kids at Hogwarts. But as Neville says, "they don't want to spill too much pure blood, so they'll torture us a bit if we're mouthy, but they won't actually kill us." Fleeing from Voldemort would get Draco killed, so I am still not sure what you were expecting Snape to do for him. The expectation that Draco would morph into a hero can not have been based on canon, IMO -- when did he show any signs of it? I can see where it could have been based on other stories -- Lando Calrissian is the example that comes to mind of a half-hearted villain who becomes a hero in his own right. But he was Han's old friend, took a shine to Leia, and never had any use for the Empire. OTOH, Draco was never friends with the Trio, never wanted to be Ron's or Hermione's friend at all, and would have been perfectly happy to see Voldemort reign over the WW if Voldie hadn't turned against his parents. > > >>Pippin: > > What he does to help the family that were his friends is to > > bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Really? *Snape* does? I thought it was all Harry. Snape gets him > the sword, but wasn't that about all Snape does? (Oh, he gets Mad- > Eye killed, for some odd reason. And there was that fortuitous > memory dump.) And why are we supposed to think Snape is worried > about the Malfoys? Is there anything in DH to suggest it? Pippin: The sudden movement in GoF, Narcissa's faith that Snape will find a way to help Draco (and her expectation that he will do this without any reward from her), Sirius's lap dog comment, all show there's a close relationship between Snape and the Malfoys. But there is nothing he can do by directly challenging the Dark Lord as he explained in HBP, and he would be a fool to attempt it. Harry, OTOH, can destroy Voldemort, therefore Harry is the Malfoy's best hope. Even Narcissa recognizes this in the end. Since Snape, like everyone else except the Trio and DD's portrait, is not privy to what Harry is trying to do, Snape's role is limited. I wouldn't say reduced, since what he does do is vital. His role in the book is reduced compared to HBP, which after all is named for him. But it isn't reduced compared to, say, CoS or GoF. In DH he gets the only fully realized death scene in the entire series, which makes him quite important since death is a major theme. > Betsy Hp: > Screw the students, huh? ::shrug:: Kind of Dumbledore's normal way > of operating though so yeah, scew 'em. Pippin: Even with the Elder Wand, Dumbledore's power was not infinite, therefore his power to protect the students was not infinite. Snape's power was even less. I think the necessity of choosing their battles is a lot of what makes JKR's good characters interesting. But if your idea of a hero is someone who never has to compromise, then yeah, such a person could not exist in the universe JKR chose to write about. I can see where it might be tempting to exaggerate Snape's victimhood. Then we readers could construct a rescue scenario of our own, where JKR is the bullying tyrant who abuses her characters and we who point this out can cast ourselves in her place as champion of the oppressed. After all anyone who's that rich and that famous can't really be good . Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 00:12:11 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:12:11 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177808 >Winterfell: While there are issues of revenge in the Harry Potter novels, there is absolutely no proof that JKR has "fun" dishing out this revenge w/o always considering the implications of such revenge. JKR has plot threads to further and I believe she fully knew the consequences & implications of what she wrote w/ regard to revenge. What motivated JKR to write what she did is known only by her unless she revealed her motivations in interviews. I just want to know what proof is there that JKR is having irresponsible fun when she is writing about revenge. Winterfell who thinks that JKR knows best why she writes what she does and not us readers. lizzyben: She's said that she uses writing to exact revenge at times, so that's not really in dispute. As to whether it's irresponsible... it's her world, right? She has a right to present her own values as much as any writer does, and readers have a right to agree or disagree w/those actions. I'm not saying that Marietta is based on a real person, but that she embodies a type of person JKR really doesn't like (traitors), and so receives just punishment in JKR's eyes. Others might disagree. And people can have totally different opinions about what motivates JKR to write about anything - only she knows for sure! Even interviews are incomplete; but the int. seem to suggest to me that she does have fun sometimes exacting justice/revenge on the various bad characters. So I might be totally wrong, but I'm not making this up out of nothing. "That child is unlikely to be the only person who would like to ask Joanne Rowling about the genesis of that character, a journalist who glories in the byline Rita Skeeter. Those people would have one question: what prompted Rowling to devise arguably her most obnoxious caricature so far? It seems that the creator of Harry Potter was taking revenge." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0900-independent-carrell.html "The great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on everyone." For revenge, Harry has magically tortured his cousin Dudley. 'I like torturing them,' said Rowling. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1100-cinescape-garcia2.htm "A: Are we going to see more of her (Umbridge)? [Jo nods.] You say that with an evil nod. JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm > Alla: > But that's not the argument,no? It seems that Lizzyben's argument is > that JKR wrote the novel primarily **because** she wanted to > exercise revenge on real people and yeah, I find this having no > support, unless we claim to read JKR's mind or she says so in > interviews. lizzyben: That's not my argument; though I wasn't really making any argument at all beyond one sentence about Marietta's punishment. JKR wrote the novels for many different reasons; primarily, I would imagine, to tell a good story. I said that there's an *element* of revenge fantasy to the novels, along with many other elements. This revenge is not always or even mostly exacted against characters based on real people, but on 'bad guy' characters in general. Whether readers view these punishments as justice or revenge, deserved or harsh, fair or unfair, is totally a matter of individual interpretation. While reading OOTP, all I remember thinking about the jinx is "Go Hermione", so it's not like I'm knocking all these revenges/karmic justices. I didn't even really realize how many examples there were until people brought them up. > Alla: > I say she wanted to write **nasty** characters - Snape and Lockhart > and she wrote them. I do **not** know that she wrote them > **because** she wanted to exercise revenge over real people. lizzyben: Snape & Lockhart are based on real people, and are the only ones known to be from real life (AFAIK). And just because they're based on real people doesn't mean that they were only introduced for revenge purposes, cause that's not what I believe. They're just models for the "bad guys". JKR is just really, really good as creating these nasty villains; and those villains usually do get their comeuppance in the end. Pippin: I can see where it might be tempting to exaggerate Snape's victimhood. Then we readers could construct a rescue scenario of our own, where JKR is the bullying tyrant who abuses her characters and we who point this out can cast ourselves in her place as champion of the oppressed. lizzyben: LOL, isn't that what hurt/comfort is all about? Snape ended up being the ultimate embodiment of that particular dynamic - author as persecutor, Lupin/Sirius/Snape as victimized hero, reader as noble rescuer! In so doing, readers are roped into the drama triangle as well - very clever, JKR. lizzyben From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 00:05:05 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:05:05 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore // Cunning in Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177809 > Jen: > The only thing I really question is this bit in the OOTP Sorting > song: 'We'll teach those whose ancestry is purest' doesn't sound > like pure-blood supremacy so much as setting up the conditions > for it. > Hmm, not sure where I'm going with this exactly. I suppose I'm > curious what others think about that particular phrase? > Also, re: cunning, Dumbledore praises Draco for outsmarting him > when he finds a way to let the DEs into Hogwarts. He also praises > Snape as the only person he would entrust with the job of fooling > Voldemort. I read those moments as high praise for cunning and > ambition in Slytherins. In addition, Regulus exhibited bravery > to cross Voldemort like he did; the plan itself can't be called > brave though, it required ambition and cunning to carry out imo > ('crafty, wily, dexterous, involving keen insight or trickery' > according to my dictionary). johnson_fan4evre48: Jen, I do agree with you on some of your points but others I do not. I would like to know what you think of the fact that Regulus did choose to leave the DE's. He was a Slytherin that went bad and chose to be good. As did Snape. So many people have made the remark that all those who went to Slytherin went bad, (as Ron Weasley said SS) I agree with you on the point that Slughorn did not go bad but he did have it in his mind that half bloods were inferior to whole bloods, and was always truly exceptionally suprised to see Half blood or people like Hermione. It leads people to believe that the struggle within was always about the purity of one's heart, being the life force of all magic had to do with the blood. With all the knowlege the hat had why did he allow the children to choose. He could of steered the weaker ones away so they could become better and bolder witches and wizards. To continue on with my answer was I feel the Sorting Hat has as much to deal with the prejudice in the houses as well as all the other charaters. I also feel the Heads of Houses did not alleviate it either but to put all the blame on one House was a bit much. johnson_fan4evre48 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 8 00:57:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:57:19 -0000 Subject: Slytherin quote sourced! was Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177810 > >Pippin: > >Somebody may have picked up a Quick Quotes Quill by mistake . > > lizzyben: > > Since I posted that, I thought I should include the link: > " > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/100012 > > This is from a HPfGU post; I can't confirm or deny it beyond that. But > it does seem consistent w/her other quote about being "concerned" that > some people self-identify as Slytherins. Pippin: Thanks Lizzyben! A little sleuthing shows that a fansite award and link to the Godric's Hollow website was removed on May 13th 2006 because the GH site no longer existed in its original form (according to the HP-lexicon.) The quote according to p. 31 of the "Unauthorized "Half-Blood Prince" Update" by W. Frederick Zimmerman was: A great site run by real enthusiasts. The people who designed this site have really Thought It Through-- my kind of people. I am however shocked at the number of moderators who want to be sorted into Slytherin...and you should know that the Hufflepuff's common room isn't a dungeon. It's more a cellar - a subtle but important difference. You can find the whole book on Google book search. Anyway, like the other quote it sounds like teasing since she is praising the site and its moderators and linking to it from her site. I can find no Google or accio results that Rowling has ever used the phrase "shocked and disturbed." Pippin having a LOON moment (League of Overly Obsessed Nitpickers) From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Oct 8 02:06:06 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:06:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4709908E.8080105@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177811 Alla: > And yes, canon does not say that Marietta used her mother as excuse, > but canon **says** that Marietta went to Umbridge, NOT to her mother > and yes, that makes me think that Marietta using her mother as > excuse is one of the valid possibilities. Random832: Well...canon says, I believe, that Umbridge is intercepting the post. So, how could she have gone to her mother? Hell, as far as that goes canon doesn't ACTUALLY say she _didn't_ go to her mother. Imagine this: She writes a letter to her mother - saying she's worried about stuff, etc; sufficiently vague as to not trigger the curse. Umbridge reads it. Then Umbridge wants to have a little 'talk' with Marietta, and, in that situation, how many of you can say you wouldn't cave into the kind of threats we know Umbridge is capable of making? --Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:13:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:13:55 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <4709908E.8080105@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177812 > Random832: > Well...canon says, I believe, that Umbridge is intercepting the post. > So, how could she have gone to her mother? Hell, as far as that goes > canon doesn't ACTUALLY say she _didn't_ go to her mother. Imagine this: > She writes a letter to her mother - saying she's worried about stuff, > etc; sufficiently vague as to not trigger the curse. Umbridge reads it. > Then Umbridge wants to have a little 'talk' with Marietta, and, in that > situation, how many of you can say you wouldn't cave into the kind of > threats we know Umbridge is capable of making? Alla: Most definitely. If I saw any signs in the text that this scenario actually occurred, I would have felt more sympathetic to Marietta. But I do not think I should be expected to prove something that **may** have happened on the page. If you are saying that it happened, I think the burden is on you ( generic you of course) to prove it. Otherwise there are a lot of things that canon does not say not happened. I certainly cannot prove the negative, but as far as we know one part of the scenario you described is incorrect already - Marietta went to Umbridge of her own initiative. I mean, you can say you do not trust Umbridge words of course. In this situation I do, because there are no contradicting testimony by anybody, no? JMO, Alla From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 8 02:22:59 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:22:59 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177813 > Prep0strus: > But unchecked is the kind of ambition Slytherins have ... > > 'Use any means.' It's not, 'try their best' or 'work the hardest' > That phrase has stuck with me. Especially when it's exactly what we > see of Slytherins. Cheat, steal, kill - a Slytherin will do what he > has to do to get what he wants. > > But the other traits are no more helpful in making the house equal. > Cunning does not have to be bad, but it is associated with deceit, and > I believe it has a negative connotation. Compared to Ravenclaw - > wit, learning, cleverest, intelligence is surest... Slytherin always > only gets 'cunning'. People have come up with some great synonyms for > cunning and say, look, Slytherins could be this, too! But JKR never > chose another word, even though Ravenclaws get the full spectrum of > intelligence in their songs. So Slytherins get cunning, ambition > associated with 'power-hungry Slytherin', and finally purebloodedness, > which is not only not a strength, but is associated with the bigotry > and hate described through all seven books. > > I don't think those compare to the list of adjectives Ravenclaw has - > which could certainly be used for good or evil, but are generally > positive traits to hold. Or to Hufflepuff, which, while being 'the > rest' isn't so great, I would say 'hard working', 'just', and 'loyal' > are all quite positive traits. Finally, Griffindors has the > 'bravest', 'boldest', ones with 'brave deeds to their name', as well > as 'daring', 'nerve', and 'chivalry'. And while bravery does not > always have to be positive, I believe it, as opposed to cunning, > carries a positive connotation. And chivalry surely also connotes > goodness. Celoneth: We see unchecked bravery (i.e.) recklessness as well), but for the most part we see all the house traits in moderation in actual characters. All the characters that are featured all have traits from other houses (otherwise they'd be two-dimensional cartoon characters). I doubt that the vast majority of Slytherins would use "any means," just like most Gryffindors are as brave and chivalrous as the sorting hat describes (take Seamus and Lavander Brown). Maybe to you ambition and cunning denotes something bad. Deception isn't always bad. In strategy, deception can mean the difference between victory and disaster. Bravery, without cunning and ambition often leads to loss because no matter how brave you are, if your opponent can outwit you, you'll probably lose. Bravery and hard work are celebrated in literature(hence they are celebrated), but in real life they would be worthless without cunning and ambition. Like I posted earlier, there are downsides to every house if someone takes the traits of their house to the extreme - and we see examples of these in the books (often regardless of what house the character is). Chivalry does not = goodness. Chivalrous people can act to pursue what they think is good, regardless of whether it is of actual benefit to society. Also chivalry has for centuries been justification for sexism and oppression. > Prep0strus: > The problem is, we don't see many good things done by Slytherins. > And, even when we do, those Slytherins are not likable people. Yes, > it is through Harry's perspective, as many have said, but I believe > that argument becomes weaker when the series has completed. If the > point was that Harry's pov is flawed, shouldn't we, or he, learn that > at some point, and with more than just realizing Snape is good? 'Cause > I thought he was good anyway, but he still wasn't nice or kind or > likable. It's not a lack of a good Slytherin that's Harry's age - > it's a lack of a not-unpleasant Slytherin of ANY age that's the problem. Celoneth: We don't know the good things done by Slytherins or Gryffindors or Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws for the most part. That's because in the adult WW - house affiliation seems to not matter much (apart from parents rooting for the kids to be in their house - not very different as parents rooting for their kids to attend the same college they attended in real life). We see many times in the books that Harry's pov is flawed, why can't it continue to be flawed at the end of the series - if he's imperfect at 11 or 17, why does he have to be perfect at 38? > Prep0strus: > Again, I guess I just disagree. The adult Slytherins we see are just > as unpleasant as any kid Slytherins. If JKR wanted us to see that the > differences don't matter as adults, then we would have heard the > previous house affiliations of the people you mentioned, and others. > Fudge could have been a not-brave Griffindor, Umbridge a not-just > Hufflepuff, Kingsley, a noble Slytherin. But we didn't get those, and > based on what we were shown, I have to assume Umbridge is Slytherin, > Kingsley is Griffindor, and Fudge is... well, Fudge is pathetic. I > have no idea what Fudge is. I'd never use those examples in an > argument, because we don't know, of course, but I think if we DID > know, the world would be clearer. > > I don't think we can assume that many unnamed Slytherins out there are > great people, when we were never shown one who is. That's the leap I > refuse to make. It's a work of fiction. The world is how it is > presented, and in order to make that kind of assumption, I want to be > shown in some fashion that it is likely. She had every opportunity to > show Slytherins as more than simply selfish and unpleasant, and she > took every opportunity to show, that no, they are all pretty much > unlikable. They may not all be evil, but they're all still shown > negatively. And that has way more effect on me than the idea that, > yeah, well, probably there are some nice ones out there. Which is why > I feel the real world is different from this created world. Celoneth: But you're missing my point - we don't know what house affiliation most adults are in the WW - if it mattered so much then you'd think that house affiliation would be something widely announced or hidden depending on the house. If Slytherin = evil then why don't we see hiring depending on house. Why don't we see adults refer to what house other adults are in. We don't see the house affiliations because they don't matter much, nor do they translate into the kind of adults the kids become. I'm not going to assume what house any adults are in unless its stated in canon - because it really would be random. I could put Kingsley in any house, including Slytherin (you have to be cunning to be a good of an auror as he is). Umbridge has a lot of Slytherin traits but it doesn't put her in Slytherin automatically - Molly & Arthur have very few Gryffindor traits but they're still Gryffindor graduates. Percy also would make for a perfect Slytherin, ambitious to the point of harming his family, but yet he's a Gryffindor. Crouch Sr. who was as evil as most DEs would probably fit well into Slytherin - but that is not ever raised as an issue. If house differences translate so purely and mean so much then the characters behaviour should reflect it. For the most part we don't see that. Most characters display a mix of house qualities, since most people have a mix of house qualities. Apart from the trio, most Gryffindors aren't very brave either. The house traits may be more prevalent in the people in those houses, but it doesn't really show in most characters - they're a mix of values and traits and ambitions as are people in real life - to do otherwise would be to make some very boring and stereotypical characters. Which is why I can't buy that JKR created Slytherin to represent all which is bad in society. We see bad and good behaviour from all sides, and realistically we see a lot of morally neutral behaviour most of the time. The vast majority of people are both bad and good but mostly neutral - I think the books reflect that. Celoneth From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 02:45:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:45:07 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: <4709908E.8080105@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177814 > Random832: > Well...canon says, I believe, that Umbridge is intercepting the post. > So, how could she have gone to her mother? Hell, as far as that goes > canon doesn't ACTUALLY say she _didn't_ go to her mother. Imagine this: > She writes a letter to her mother - saying she's worried about stuff, > etc; sufficiently vague as to not trigger the curse. Umbridge reads it. > Then Umbridge wants to have a little 'talk' with Marietta, and, in that > situation, how many of you can say you wouldn't cave into the kind of > threats we know Umbridge is capable of making? Magpie: Or Umbridge could have gotten in touch with Marietta's mother. If she knows everybody who works at the Ministry who has kids at Hogwarts, the word could easily be putting pressure on people there. Marietta's mother could have made that clear to Marietta, making Marietta go to Umbridge or whatever. Basically, we have no idea what happened, but her mother working for the Ministry is the only thing mentioned for a motive for Marietta. Making it just an excuse seems to add a level of complication that makes it even less comprehensible. Why would Marietta put herself out there at all if she just didn't want to stand up to the Ministry? The above scenario was the one that I imagined when I read the story, that people at the Ministry were leaned on and whichever ones were weaker were going to pressure their kids. Umbridge could also have read mail from Marietta, I suppose, and gotten a clue. I just naturally put together the few things I have been told to make it work. In this case there doesn't seem to be enough reason to assume that anything's been put forward as a lie. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 02:57:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:57:41 -0000 Subject: Marietta and her mother WAS : Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177815 > Magpie: > Or Umbridge could have gotten in touch with Marietta's mother. If she > knows everybody who works at the Ministry who has kids at Hogwarts, the > word could easily be putting pressure on people there. Marietta's > mother could have made that clear to Marietta, making Marietta go to > Umbridge or whatever. > > Basically, we have no idea what happened, but her mother working for > the Ministry is the only thing mentioned for a motive for Marietta. > Making it just an excuse seems to add a level of complication that > makes it even less comprehensible. Why would Marietta put herself out > there at all if she just didn't want to stand up to the Ministry? Alla: Precisely. We have **no idea** what happened. I do not think Marietta's mother had been a lie, but could have been an excuse? I think so, yes. Especially since unless I remember it incorrectly Marietta does not say a word about her mother when Cho talks about her, no? Doesn't she not confirm what Cho says even with the head's nod? I can totally see how she could have just mentioned her mother to Cho as excuse of not going, but then pushy Choe overpowered her regardless and Marietta just did not dare to repeat it with so many people here, because somebody's parent may actually work with her mother and call Marietta on it. Speculation? Sure, but no more speculation than the scenario you describe IMO. Magpie: > The above scenario was the one that I imagined when I read the story, > that people at the Ministry were leaned on and whichever ones were > weaker were going to pressure their kids. Umbridge could also have read > mail from Marietta, I suppose, and gotten a clue. Alla: Oh? Now it is a massive pressure in the Ministry? I mean, not only on Marietta's mother? Where is it in OOP? I mean, if we are arguing only from what is in the book? Magpie: I just naturally put > together the few things I have been told to make it work. In this case > there doesn't seem to be enough reason to assume that anything's been > put forward as a lie. Alla: You naturally put together a few things to make what work? All that pressure on Marietta's mother? Where is it except what Cho said? Where are all those pressures on ministry employees to support Umbridge? From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 03:16:04 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:16:04 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177816 > Celoneth: > We see unchecked bravery (i.e.) recklessness as well), but for the > most part we see all the house traits in moderation in actual > characters. All the characters that are featured all have traits from > other houses (otherwise they'd be two-dimensional cartoon characters). > I doubt that the vast majority of Slytherins would use "any means," > just like most Gryffindors are as brave and chivalrous as the sorting > hat describes (take Seamus and Lavander Brown). Maybe to you ambition > and cunning denotes something bad. Deception isn't always bad. In > strategy, deception can mean the difference between victory and > disaster. Bravery, without cunning and ambition often leads to loss > because no matter how brave you are, if your opponent can outwit you, > you'll probably lose. Bravery and hard work are celebrated in > literature(hence they are celebrated), but in real life they would be > worthless without cunning and ambition. Like I posted earlier, there > are downsides to every house if someone takes the traits of their > house to the extreme - and we see examples of these in the books > (often regardless of what house the character is). > Prep0strus: Except it's what is actually stated by the hat - 'will use any means'. The hat doesn't say, 'dangerously reckless'. There's the difference. And the Slytherin ambition we see is Riddle - leading to genocide. It is Draco, willing to try to kill to get in good with Voldemort, willing to sacrifice the life of Buckbeak for special treatment. It is Slughorn sucking up to some kids while dismissing and alienating others who can't do anything from him. It is not the ambition of the twins or even Percy. It is a different animal altogether. And not all the traits are bad taken to their extreme - intelligence isn't, nor hard work, or loyalty. These things can be used for things that are wrong, but are not in themselves negative, even at their extremes. Celoneth: > Chivalry does not = goodness. Chivalrous people can act to pursue what > they think is good, regardless of whether it is of actual benefit to > society. Also chivalry has for centuries been justification for sexism > and oppression. Prep0strus: People like definitions, so, chivalry: 1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms. You're right, anything can be negative. But in writing the songs, JKR used words that don't just have straight definitions, but also connotations. The implied meaning of words often has as much impact as its dictionary definition. Chivalry, especially in a fantasy setting, surely has a good connotation. Cunning is a word more often associated with villains and tricksters. It is not that it cannot be used otherwise, but there are normal associations with the word. > > > Celoneth: > We don't know the good things done by Slytherins or Gryffindors or > Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws for the most part. That's because in the > adult WW - house affiliation seems to not matter much (apart from > parents rooting for the kids to be in their house - not very different > as parents rooting for their kids to attend the same college they > attended in real life). We see many times in the books that Harry's > pov is flawed, why can't it continue to be flawed at the end of the > series - if he's imperfect at 11 or 17, why does he have to be perfect > at 38? > Prep0strus: Because it's literature. Because it's fiction, and was created by someone. Assuming his point of view is flawed for the entire series, and we are never shown the truth implies a much deeper work than I believe we have in front of us. I don't think this is 'Cather in the Rye', where everything has that filter. Besides, not everything even has a Harry filter. There are scenes that do not have Harry, and there are some undeniable facts, whether Harry sees them or not. And the author makes a choice of what to show us. If she never shows us certain things, I'm not going to assume that they're there, but there are all these extra layers in the writing blocking me from the truth. It would not have been a difficult thing for her to show us some of that world, even through the Harry filter, or around it. She did not, and so I do not believe that interpretation. > > Celoneth: > But you're missing my point - we don't know what house affiliation > most adults are in the WW - if it mattered so much then you'd think > that house affiliation would be something widely announced or hidden > depending on the house. The house traits may be more > prevalent in the people in those houses, but it doesn't really show in > most characters - they're a mix of values and traits and ambitions as > are people in real life - to do otherwise would be to make some very > boring and stereotypical characters. Which is why I can't buy that JKR > created Slytherin to represent all which is bad in society. We see bad > and good behaviour from all sides, and realistically we see a lot of > morally neutral behaviour most of the time. The vast majority of > people are both bad and good but mostly neutral - I think the books > reflect that. Prep0strus: I don't think there is a mix of values and traits as in real life. If that were the case, we would have seen a Slytherin who was not completely unpleasant. They are not neutral either. They are directly associated with a negative form of ambition, as shown in the song, and in the characterization. They are directly associated with a bigoted blood prejudice, as shown in the song, the characterization, and really the entire plotline. And she gives no traits to Slytherin that are shown as positive. (Regardless of whether an argument can be made that they COULD be positive.) Looking at characters, we have Hufflepuff: Positive characterizations: Prof. Sprout, Tonks(found this on a HP website - is this verified?), Cedric Diggory, assorted other members of the DA, Helga Hufflepuff, (Fat Friar? unknown, I guess, but he always seemed positive to me) Negative characterizations: Zacharias Smith Ravenclaw Positive characterizations: Prof. Flitwick, Cho & other members of the DA, Rowena Ravenclaw (I think the grey lady winds up being characterized a little more neutral to me) Negative characterizations: Marietta. Maybe Myrtle. Griffindor: Positive characterizations: Harry, his parents, All Weaseleys (excepting perhaps Percy), Hermione, Lee Jordan, other members of the DA, Griffindor Quidditch team, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Sirius, Lupin, Godric Griffindor, Nearly-Headless Nick Negative characterizations: Peter, McLaggen Slytherin: Positive characterizations: *cricket* *cricket* Negative characterizations: All Blacks other than Sirius, Slughorn, The Bloody Baron, Salazar Slytherin, Avery, 2 Lestranges, Rosier, all Malfoys, Crabbes, and Goyles, Avery, Mulciber, Marcus Flint and the Slytherin Quidditch team, other Slytherins at Hogwarts, especially in Harry's year, Tom Riddle, Severus Snape Look, I'm sure people can disagree on certain specifics. No matter how bitter, caustic, nasty, and unpleasant, there are those who think that Snape was characterized positively. And after DH, I think there are people who can't believe I didn't characterize Dumbledore negatively. And the good characters certainly have flaws and are a mixture of traits. But overall, I think this is how she wanted us to see these characters, the ones I could think of or find (and I'm sure I'm missing some because I don't think the place I was looking was totally updated with DH) that were put in a house for us. And by negative or positive, I don't mean good or evil. It's clear not everyone I said was negatively characterized was 'evil'. But they're still unpleasant and I believe meant to be viewed mostly negatively, especially on a personal level. And the fact that we do know all those Death Eaters to be Slytherin means something, as does the fact that there isn't a positively characterized Slytherin to be found anywhere. In the real world, I would accept that there is more than what I have seen. In a work of fiction, I have to process everything I have been shown and make a judgment based on that. Here, it seems we have a deliberate attempt by an author to not present any character associated with a particular house in a positive light. In addition, she shows almost every single act of evil to be performed by a stated member of that house. (Peter's betrayal being the only truly notable exception. Marietta's action probably not rising to 'evil'.) It seems that there is a general belief that just because we weren't shown something, doesn't mean it isn't there. Since it's fiction, I believe that yes, because we weren't shown it, it isn't there. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 03:16:59 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:16:59 -0000 Subject: Marietta and her mother WAS : Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177817 > Alla: > > Precisely. We have **no idea** what happened. I do not think > Marietta's mother had been a lie, but could have been an excuse? I > think so, yes. Especially since unless I remember it incorrectly > Marietta does not say a word about her mother when Cho talks about > her, no? > Doesn't she not confirm what Cho says even with the head's nod? > > I can totally see how she could have just mentioned her mother to > Cho as excuse of not going, but then pushy Choe overpowered her > regardless and Marietta just did not dare to repeat it with so many > people here, because somebody's parent may actually work with her > mother and call Marietta on it. > > Speculation? Sure, but no more speculation than the scenario you > describe IMO. Magpie: Yes, mine's speculation too, but one that takes the things we're told and puts them together in what is for me a straighter line than imagining all this. They could both be wrong, but this one's more complicated for me to follow--Marietta's mentionign her mother, Cho's got the wrong idea, she's afraid to mention it again. All I know is her mother apparently works for the Ministry and that's the only hint of motivation I'm given in canon, so it's the only one the author gave me without giving me any true details about what happened. If you dismiss that as an excuse there is no motivation so it's just that much more of a mystery. Not wanting to "stand up" to the Ministry is reason to not go to the DA, not reason to tell anybody else about it, and I'd want to know why somebody who's trying not to stand up is standing up. Marietta's mother gives me an easier way to just parallel Cho and Marietta's mother. > > > Magpie: > > The above scenario was the one that I imagined when I read the > story, > > that people at the Ministry were leaned on and whichever ones were > > weaker were going to pressure their kids. Umbridge could also have > read > > mail from Marietta, I suppose, and gotten a clue. > > Alla: > > Oh? Now it is a massive pressure in the Ministry? I mean, not only > on Marietta's mother? Where is it in OOP? I mean, if we are arguing > only from what is in the book? Magpie: First I said this was "what I imagined" so obviously there's nothing in canon. I also didn't say anything about "massive pressure." We know Umbridge works at the Ministry, Cho mentions Marietta's mother working there as a motivation for her to say something, and give what we see of Umbridge it seems perfectly in character for her to get the word out to the people who work at the Ministry. Somebody like Amelia Bones and Arthur Weasley obviously wouldn't be affected. Or maybe Marietta just decided herself it was a conflict of interest against her mother. I don't know. I just take Cho's given motivation as having some truth in it since it's the only one I've got. > Magpie: > I just naturally put > > together the few things I have been told to make it work. In this > case > > there doesn't seem to be enough reason to assume that anything's > been > > put forward as a lie. > > > > Alla: > > You naturally put together a few things to make what work? All that > pressure on Marietta's mother? Where is it except what Cho said? > > Where are all those pressures on ministry employees to support > Umbridge? Magpie: I said those were things I imagined to fill in the blanks. That's obviously not what I'm referring to by things that were in the book. I meant that I don't think Marietta's mother working for the Ministry being tied to her motivation was put in as a lie to readers. That's the part that isn't a lie. The other stuff was just the scenario I imagined to fill in the rather huge gap between what Cho says, what Marietta does and what actually happened. There is no canon for that. We don't know. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 03:33:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:33:28 -0000 Subject: Marietta and her mother WAS : Re: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177818 > > > > Magpie: > > > The above scenario was the one that I imagined when I read the > > story, > > > that people at the Ministry were leaned on and whichever ones > were > > > weaker were going to pressure their kids. Umbridge could also > have > > read > > > mail from Marietta, I suppose, and gotten a clue. > > > > Alla: > > > > Oh? Now it is a massive pressure in the Ministry? I mean, not only > > on Marietta's mother? Where is it in OOP? I mean, if we are arguing > > only from what is in the book? > > Magpie: > First I said this was "what I imagined" so obviously there's nothing > in canon. I also didn't say anything about "massive pressure." We > know Umbridge works at the Ministry, Cho mentions Marietta's mother > working there as a motivation for her to say something, and give what > we see of Umbridge it seems perfectly in character for her to get the > word out to the people who work at the Ministry. Somebody like Amelia > Bones and Arthur Weasley obviously wouldn't be affected. > > Or maybe Marietta just decided herself it was a conflict of interest > against her mother. I don't know. I just take Cho's given motivation > as having some truth in it since it's the only one I've got. Alla: Sorry, I took the people at the ministry were leaned on and translated in massive pressure. Sorry. But you were imaginng pressure on other employees, no? Or did "leaned on" means something other than pressure in this context? And actually, there IS no motivation explicitly mentioned for Marietta's betrayal at all, no? I mean, what Cho says is a supposed reason for Marietta not wanting to be here, NOT to go to Umbridge. I mean, am I mixing up my pages again? I do know OOP the worst, so that is possible. Is there something said by Cho after the fact except her defending Marietta to Harry about why she did it? That is again just adds to me thinking that Marietta's mother could have been just an excuse for her not wanting to be there. And of course by the way it may not have been, I just see it as a very valid possibility, Certainly no less valid IMO than Marietta's mother supposedly writing to her and Umbridge getting a clue of this. > Magpie: > I said those were things I imagined to fill in the blanks. That's > obviously not what I'm referring to by things that were in the book. > I meant that I don't think Marietta's mother working for the Ministry > being tied to her motivation was put in as a lie to readers. That's > the part that isn't a lie. The other stuff was just the scenario I > imagined to fill in the rather huge gap between what Cho says, what > Marietta does and what actually happened. There is no canon for that. > We don't know. Alla: Not lie, again definitely NOT lie. Just not sure that Marietta was motivated by it, but sure that her mother works in the ministry. Although maybe she was, just do not see anything in the book that there was a pressure. I **can** buy that Marietta dreamt it up - that she thought that her mother was threatened all on her own, but I certainly see no indication of pressure on the Ministry employees who disagreed with Umbridge. Of course I can be wrong. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 03:50:45 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:50:45 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177819 > Prep0strus: : In addition, > she shows almost every single act of evil to be performed by a stated > member of that house. (Peter's betrayal being the only truly notable > exception. Marietta's action probably not rising to 'evil'.) zgirnius: Umbridge commits various acts that rise to the level of evil, and she is not a stated member of Slytherin House. Quirrell is not either. Nor is Lockhart, who tries to destroy the minds of Harry and Ron to save his reputation. Nor is Barty Crouch, Jr. There are also several Death Eaters, House unknown, some of whom committed acts of evil - the Carrows, for example. As far as positively characterized Slytherins...what is wrong with Andromeda Black Tonks again, other than that Harry was reminded of Bella by her looks and got off on the wrong foot with her? She and her husband seem to have a good relationship, and have raised a friendly, loving daughter. They work for the good by permitting their house to be used as one of the decoy hiding places. And (seems likely) she raises also a a happy, well-adjusted grandson after her daughter is killed in the war. I find, also, that the 'likable' test is one I do not understand. Likable according to whom? Why is Regulus Black not likable? Because Sirius said bad things about him (and those things did not even touch on likability)? It seems Kreacher liked him. No one else we encounter offers any opinion. I see no reason to suppose Regulus was unlikable as a person. Which I guess makes him negatively presented because he was a Death Eater. Except we have no idea what he did as a Death Eater, other than loan Voldemort Kreacher and then attempt to destroy a Horcrux of Voldemort. On balance, going purely from the information we have, I'd say this moves him into the positive side of the ledger. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 04:57:48 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:57:48 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177820 > zgirnius: > Umbridge commits various acts that rise to the level of evil, and she > is not a stated member of Slytherin House. Quirrell is not either. Nor > is Lockhart, who tries to destroy the minds of Harry and Ron to save > his reputation. Nor is Barty Crouch, Jr. There are also several Death > Eaters, House unknown, some of whom committed acts of evil - the > Carrows, for example. > Prep0strus: I was not counting undefined characters. Like I've said, if she wanted us to know there were Death Eaters who weren't Slytherin, she could have given us one. If she wanted us to know Slytherins who weren't unpleasant, she would have given us one. Any assumption can be made about characters who were not explicitly stated to be something. Mine would be that everyone you stated would be Slytherin. Maybe not Quirrel, because he's kind of possessed. But the others. The DEs because they all are, Umbridge mostly because she's unpleasant, and Lockhart and Crouch because I believe ambition to be their defining characteristics. But I can't defend that. But no one can defend them being NOT Slytherin either. I'm going based on what we were told. I don't want to make assumptions based on things we were NOT told. This is why I don't believe the wizarding world to be the same as the real world in the first place. In a real world, I can make assumptions based on all the knowledge that exists in the world. In a fictional universe I make assumptions based on what the author has given me to work with. She has not given me a nice Slytherin, and so I will not assume one. zgirnius > As far as positively characterized Slytherins...what is wrong with > Andromeda Black Tonks again, other than that Harry was reminded of > Bella by her looks and got off on the wrong foot with her? She and her > husband seem to have a good relationship, and have raised a friendly, > loving daughter. They work for the good by permitting their house to be > used as one of the decoy hiding places. And (seems likely) she raises > also a a happy, well-adjusted grandson after her daughter is killed in > the war. > Prep0strus: This is opening back up a can of worms from a few weeks ago, but I don't believe Andromeda was ever explicitly stated to be a Slytherin. Information as told to us by a character is more unreliable (as so many have stated when Hagrid says every wizard who went to Voldemort was a Slytherin). That being said, I think I might have assumed her to be one. But, as the arguments played out a couple weeks ago, Andromeda is barely a character. We don't know her personality very well, whatever we might assume from her relationships. And her place in the story is so minor that I don't believe she can act as the 'one good, likable Slytherin' that justifies the idea that the houses are all equal, that balances out every other evil Slytherin, every other horrible characterization of Slytherin. If she works for you, that's great, I guess. But a lot of us feel that one very small character, who we barely know, who is never even explicitly stated to be Slytherin, can hold that kind of representative power in the story. zgirnius: > I find, also, that the 'likable' test is one I do not understand. > Likable according to whom? Why is Regulus Black not likable? Because > Sirius said bad things about him (and those things did not even touch > on likability)? It seems Kreacher liked him. No one else we encounter > offers any opinion. I see no reason to suppose Regulus was unlikable as > a person. Which I guess makes him negatively presented because he was a > Death Eater. Except we have no idea what he did as a Death Eater, other > than loan Voldemort Kreacher and then attempt to destroy a Horcrux of > Voldemort. On balance, going purely from the information we have, I'd > say this moves him into the positive side of the ledger. > Prep0strus: The likable test? Well, let's say... me. Silly, maybe, but really, how can I force a subjective test on anyone else? if you want to know why I feel he's not portrayed as likable, that's easy. He is described as buying into all the pureblood nonsense. We have no evidence that he ever recanted those beliefs. For all we know he died a bigot. A bigot who loved his elf, sure, but a bigot. Or maybe not. We do know he did care for Kreacher, which is a wonderful quality. But we also know he joined the Death Eaters, and based on what we know about the Death Eaters, it's not like joining the Elk Club. We don't see A Day in the Life of a Death Eater, but from what we've seen, terror, mayhem, and murder appear to be the general activities. It was Voldemort's treatment of something he cared about that caused him to turn from him, not a disagreement over core beliefs over pureblood superiority and murder and terrorism being an appropriate way to act. >From what we know of him, I think he can be moved to the 'good' column, hopefully. As Snape is, and maybe even the Malfoys, who are at least, 'not evil'. But none of them cross over from 'unpleasant' for me. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 06:07:33 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:07:33 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177821 > JP: > But let us think about this. Granted Draco and Snape came from > imperially different backgrounds, where then, would you think he > (Snape) would get his outlooks from? His father had left, yes? So > that only left his mother to teach him. zgirnius: His father did not leave (unless it was after Sev left for Hogwarts). This is evident in the second memory of "The Prince's Tale". Lily asks Sev if 'They' are still arguing. She follows up by asking whether Sev's father likes magic, and Sev responds that his father does not like much at all. Clearly, Sev's father is one of the 'they'. (I presume his mother is the other). In light of this fact introduced to us in DH, I think it is entirely possible that little Sev managed to come up with anti-Muggle ideas all by himself before coming to Hogwarts, as a result of watching his father mistreat his mother (what does it take to make a witch cower before a Muggle?) and as a result of his outcast status among Muggles as a young boy. (Tuney knows who Sev is, and dispproves of where his family lives). From there, he might have been comfortable 'fitting in' with his housemates in Slytherin. I also don't think Sev got the full Malfoy-style indoctrination you posit based in his seeming ignorance of Slytherin House. His statements in "The Prince's Tale", on the train, suggest he thinks it is a house for smart people, and a house Lily could end up in. Surely the pureblood supremacist product of a pureblood family in the Malfoy style would know it is the house of purebloods. > JP: > I am going to still have to disagree with you on Snape's affections > for Lily. zgirnius: For the record, I consider the evidence of his love for Lily overwhelming, but would point to Harry's opinion and the Doe Patronus as the two most important bits of evidence for me. > JP: > 1) If Snape had this true love for Lily, would he have been able to > do things he does in the book, during their teenage years and > otherwise? zgirnius: It fits for me. Snape called Lily a Mudblood under fairly extreme circumstances, and regretted it instantly. (This is apparent even before his attempt at apology - after he says those words, he says nothing further to anyone, and makes no further moves to defend himself, in stark contrast to his actions prior to that moment, which included lots of struggling, incoherent insults aimed at hsi attackers, and attempts to fight back.) The other thing he did at school was to socialize with his housemates and hex James Potter, again, not a problem for my view of things. Could he become a Death Eater and love Lily? I'd say, yes again. She's chosen James at this point. As plenty of post-DH readers suggest he should have done after her death, he probably decided it was time to 'get over' her, and went into the DEs with his friends, refusing to admit his feelings to himself or face the contradiction between them and the DE philosophy. And from that point on - he learns of her danger, risks his neck to save her, and agrees to protect Harry as she would have wished once she dies despite his efforts. > JP: > 2) What was it about Snape that kept Lily at bay? If he truly loved > her, and they were close like they seem to be, what would be turning > her off about him? Is it his evil side popping out? zgirnius: His friends, I would say, and her friends. And the rivalry between their houses. They could not spend much time together at school, and Lily was popular, meaning she had plenty of other people to spend her time with. At the same time, Lily heard disturbing things about Sev's friends. > JP: > 4) So assuming he did have this love for her, where were the turning > points for him? When did he admit it to himself? When did things > change? Was it after she died? zgirnius: He knew he had to get her back, fifth year, but he failed. I imagine, though, that he denied to himself that he had loved her. His interest in her opinion of James in the earlier memory in which the prank came up, though, suggests he already did. I think that when he was forced to admit to himself at some level that he loved her was when he learned of her danger, as a Death Eater. It drove him to beg Voldemort for her life, and make a rendezvous with a man he feared might kill him on sight (Dumbledore), not to mention that he was willing to do "Anything" in exchange for her protection. Though it is an admission he never made to anyone ever, that we see. Dumbledore and later Harry know Snape loved Lily, but based on Snape's actions, not his words. Oh, I skipped the question of whether evil people can love. I'm not sure what an evil person is, exactly, but I'm sure that Snape is not one in my opinion. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 8 10:10:55 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:10:55 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177822 Magpie: > Or Umbridge could have gotten in touch with Marietta's mother. If she > knows everybody who works at the Ministry who has kids at Hogwarts, the > word could easily be putting pressure on people there. Marietta's > mother could have made that clear to Marietta, making Marietta go to > Umbridge or whatever. Ceridwen: Earlier on, Percy, who is known in the books for being a suck-up to the Ministry, writes a letter to Ron, telling him to stay away from Harry and cooperate with that lovely Dolores Umbridge. Umbridge has the Ministry's support. I don't see why Marietta's mother couldn't have also written to her, or even continued to write to her along the same lines as Percy's one letter. Would Ron have thrown the same letter into the fireplace so easily if Arthur had written it? Would he have wavered if he got similar letters occasionally from Arthur through the year? Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 13:18:32 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:18:32 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177823 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Heh. To me the elephant in the room causing the dysfunction was > > Lily's not very well hidden contempt for Snape. It was an ugly > > relationship that any kid with healthy self-respect would have > > thrown over. > >>Pippin: > Contempt? Ugly relationship? Where do you see the canon for this? > Betsy Hp: Lily spends a lot of time chastising Snape. And he spends a lot of time trying to get her attention. It didn't come across as a relationship of equals to me. I was also incredibly unimpressed that Lily blamed Snape for the two of them reading Petunia's letter. I mean, I'm sure, given everything we know, it was all Snape's idea and Lily went along with it reluctantly because she's so good and all. But it was just another way in which Snape sucked and Lily was perfect and I just couldn't see them as actual friends. More, the saint and her sinner. > >>Pippin: > I thought it was Snape's inability to recover from his grief that > you found unhealthy. Betsy Hp: I did find that weird yes. Though, I'm sure Dumbledore helped Snape into his hair-shirt every morning. > >>Pippin: > I see I misunderstood. Apparently you're seeing a whole masochistic > self-hate thing going on which I'm missing completely. Betsy Hp: Yeah, that's pretty much how I read Snape now. It's the only reason I can see him maintaining his "love" for Lily for so long, and sticking with Dumbledore as well. He hates himself and they both validate those feelings for him. > >>Pippin: > > So what does it have to do with the Slytherin dynamic? Betsy Hp: To me, everything. From the age of eleven certain children are told they're bad and disgusting. And when Gryffindor's bully them (as we see throughout the books) the Gryffindors are doing their civic duty. The Slytherins fight that viewpoint (they seem to think they're a-okay) at least until Harry finally completely humbles them by exposing their moral weakness. But in DH we learn that this viewpoint is correct. They should all be wearing hair-shirts. > >>Pippin: > I...what? Draco did get off the tower. Literally, and figuratively. > Betsy Hp: Well, literally yes. But figuratively? He's still being slung around by the scruff of his neck, following other's orders and waiting for mommy to rescue him. Draco doesn't take a postive step. So, IMO, he doesn't get off the frozen inaction of the tower. > >>Pippin: > The expectation that Draco would morph into a hero can > not have been based on canon, IMO... Betsy Hp: I agree. Which is why this wasn't an expectation of mine. I just expected a moment of positive action. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And why are we supposed to think Snape is worried about the > > Malfoys? Is there anything in DH to suggest it? > >>Pippin: > The sudden movement in GoF, Narcissa's faith that Snape will find > a way to help Draco (and her expectation that he will do this > without any reward from her), Sirius's lap dog comment, all show > there's a close relationship between Snape and the Malfoys. > Betsy Hp: They all *hint* to something that I expected to see expressed in DH. But we got nothing. Which means I can only conclude that those hints were meaningless. Spice for the broth, but no meat. > >>Pippin: > > In DH he gets the only fully realized death scene in the entire > series, which makes him quite important since death is a major > theme. Betsy Hp: How is Snape's death scene more fully realized than Sirius's, Dobby's or Dumbledore's? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Screw the students, huh? ::shrug:: Kind of Dumbledore's normal > > way of operating though so yeah, scew 'em. > >>Pippin: > Even with the Elder Wand, Dumbledore's power was not infinite, > therefore his power to protect the students was not infinite. > Snape's power was even less. I think the necessity of choosing > their battles is a lot of what makes JKR's good characters > interesting. But if your idea of a hero is someone who never has to > compromise, then yeah, such a person could not exist in the > universe JKR chose to write about. Betsy Hp: You mean like Harry? Honestly, my idea of a hero is someone who thinks or is intelligent. And yes, I'll agree, such a person seems to have a hard time existing in JKR's universe. That an idiot like Voldemort could so easly throw both Snape and Dumbledore for a loop, causing students to be injured or killed under their watch, doesn't impress me much. I wasn't looking for perfection. I was looking for effort. > >>Pippin: > I can see where it might be tempting to exaggerate Snape's > victimhood. Then we readers could construct a rescue > scenario of our own, where JKR is the bullying tyrant who > abuses her characters and we who point this out can > cast ourselves in her place as champion of the oppressed. > > After all anyone who's that rich and that famous can't really be > good . Betsy Hp: Eh, I've never had a problem with the rich. (Part of the reason Draco's money never bothered me.) As far as Snape's "victimhood"... I do think the possibilities of his character were wasted. But I think that of all of JKR's characters because I think DH was such a mess, plot-wise and character-wise. Tons of characters (including the Trio) failed to raise to their promised potential, IMO. Does that mean JKR is a "bullying tyrant"? I think it means she's a bad writer, or maybe a lazy or sloppy one. (All my opinon, of course.) And part of the problem may have been JKR forcing a story instead of letting it evolve, but I can't really know that for sure. What can say is that, for me, even the characters I found most interesting in the beginning, became rather pathetic and small in the end. Which is not how I like to end a reading. But there you are. Betsy Hp From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 8 14:02:41 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:02:41 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177824 > Prep0strus: > Except it's what is actually stated by the hat - 'will use any means'. > The hat doesn't say, 'dangerously reckless'. There's the difference. > And the Slytherin ambition we see is Riddle - leading to genocide. > It is Draco, willing to try to kill to get in good with Voldemort, > willing to sacrifice the life of Buckbeak for special treatment. It > is Slughorn sucking up to some kids while dismissing and alienating > others who can't do anything from him. It is not the ambition of the > twins or even Percy. It is a different animal altogether. And not > all the traits are bad taken to their extreme - intelligence isn't, > nor hard work, or loyalty. These things can be used for things that > are wrong, but are not in themselves negative, even at their extremes. Celoneth: Why is Draco willing to sacrifice Buckbeak an example of extreme ambition? or Draco willing to kill? With Buckbeak, certainly Hagrid was at fault more than Draco by bringing a dangerous creature to immature 13 year old. As for trying to get the hippogriff killed, it was something that most of the school probably favoured or didn't care about. Hagrid was a horrible teacher, something even Harry admits - having him sacked as a teacher and returned to caretaker would have benefitted the school imo. As for Draco willing to kill - he was acting under duress - if he didn't comply he and possibly his entire family would have died - had this been real life and he succeeded, he would have been found not culpable under the law. Slughorn has a talent for picking out able students - how is this bad? He doesn't refuse to teach all the other students, he doesn't mistreat them - but he gives extra attention to those who have the potential to succeed. The fact that he can pick out those that are talented is good strategy and benefits them as much as himself. Most people act in their own interest, I don't consider it a moral fault, its human and its smart. And how is Percy's ambition any worse? He rejects his family, would be willing to see them go to Azkaban, willing to see his friends and siblings expelled - all for what? Being Fudge's lapdog? Intelligence? I've already given an example with Xenophilius Lovegood of how someone who takes the pursuit of knowledge to a negative extreme. Loyalty? What about James Potter - who, having the knowledge that one of the Marauders was the traitor was willing to make one of them the secret keeper. Loyalty without reason is as bad as recklessness. Hard work is morally neutral - a person can work hard for good things, neutral things or bad things. Similarly a person can have great ambition to take over the world or to save the world, but most ambition is somewhere in between. > Prep0strus: > People like definitions, so, chivalry: 1. the sum of the ideal > qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and > dexterity in arms. > > You're right, anything can be negative. But in writing the songs, JKR > used words that don't just have straight definitions, but also > connotations. The implied meaning of words often has as much impact > as its dictionary definition. Chivalry, especially in a fantasy > setting, surely has a good connotation. Cunning is a word more often > associated with villains and tricksters. It is not that it cannot be > used otherwise, but there are normal associations with the word. Obviously this is something that I can't convince you on. Words do have connotations but they are often ambigious or neutral. Cunning can be good or can be bad - a thief can be cunning, as can the policeman that catches the thief. A quality that is different from wit or knowledge - someone can be smart and devoted to studying but not know how to apply it, a cunning person does and does it at least cost. And like I said before, chivalry was justification for sexism and oppression in many places, it has a historical connotation that those with privilege have used to subdue those without (i.e. we're so nice and generous and courteous to you that you don't need the right to property or voting etc.). I don't see why you so readily dismiss the positive connotations of "cunning" and so blindly accept chivalry as unbridled good. The HP equivalent that comes to my mind is young Dumbledore - wanting to conquer the non-wizarding world for the greater good - thinking the muggles should be thankful to him since he's so much better than they are. > Prep0strus: > I don't think there is a mix of values and traits as in real life. If > that were the case, we would have seen a Slytherin who was not > completely unpleasant. They are not neutral either. They are > directly associated with a negative form of ambition, as shown in the > song, and in the characterization. They are directly associated with > a bigoted blood prejudice, as shown in the song, the characterization, > and really the entire plotline. And she gives no traits to Slytherin > that are shown as positive. (Regardless of whether an argument can be > made that they COULD be positive.) > > Looking at characters, we have Hufflepuff: > > Positive characterizations: > Prof. Sprout, Tonks(found this on a HP website - is this verified?), > Cedric Diggory, assorted other members of the DA, Helga Hufflepuff, > (Fat Friar? unknown, I guess, but he always seemed positive to me) > > Negative characterizations: > Zacharias Smith > > Ravenclaw > Positive characterizations: > Prof. Flitwick, Cho & other members of the DA, Rowena Ravenclaw (I > think the grey lady winds up being characterized a little more neutral > to me) > > Negative characterizations: > Marietta. Maybe Myrtle. > > Griffindor: > Positive characterizations: > Harry, his parents, All Weaseleys (excepting perhaps Percy), Hermione, > Lee Jordan, other members of the DA, Griffindor Quidditch team, > Dumbledore, Hagrid, Sirius, Lupin, Godric Griffindor, Nearly-Headless Nick > > Negative characterizations: > Peter, McLaggen > > Slytherin: > Positive characterizations: > *cricket* *cricket* > > Negative characterizations: > All Blacks other than Sirius, Slughorn, The Bloody Baron, Salazar > Slytherin, Avery, 2 Lestranges, Rosier, all Malfoys, Crabbes, and > Goyles, Avery, Mulciber, Marcus Flint and the Slytherin Quidditch > team, other Slytherins at Hogwarts, especially in Harry's year, Tom > Riddle, Severus Snape Celoneth: The characters are not one trait to the exclusion of all else. Harry is brave, but he's also hardworking, he's cunning and ambitious at times, occassionally clever. Hermione certainly values knowledge. The fact that the characters are not just one thing is what makes them interesting and not two-dimensional. What you see as positive or negative characterisations, I often see as neutral or mixed, for example: Snape - does some bad things, is mean, but also works for the majority of his life for the pursuit of good, risks his life more than any other member of the Order voluntarily. Like real people, he's neither good or bad. Harry - does mostly good things, except when he gets angry or reckless in which case he often does bad things or makes stupid choices that sometimes lead to disaster. Dumbledore - always purports to the "greater good," which in his early years potentially could have led to mass genocide/war/etc. (in which case I wonder if he wouldn't have had a lot of Gryffindor support). Scheming, manipulative, ambitious (although he's smart enough to keep this in check in his later years). And he's a brilliant strategist, w/o whom Voldemort might have won. Its not his chivalry or his bravery that leads to Voldemort's downfall, its his cunning and wisdom. In fact looking at older Dumbledore - one could say he was sorted too soon. There are plenty of examples of the other houses being described negatively. Gryffindor has Seamus, the girl who tried slipping love potion to Harry - nearly getting Ron killed, Sirius, James, Peter, Lavander + Pavrati - not brave, mostly ditzy, Ron, Hermione, Harry all not portrait positively in instances. Ravenclaw has Marietta, Xenophilius, Cho. Hufflepuff is mostly ignored in the books, one of the books says they have very few accomplishments - not a positive thing. I don't think most of them are good or bad - I see them as neutral characters that do good/bad/neutral things depending on the situation. Same w/ Slytherins - Slughorn is neutral as far as I'm concerned. Snape certainly has a lot of good associated with him. Draco, at the end, is neither bad nor good, as are his parents. Most of the others you list are Death Eaters, and the quidditch team. Some sports teams have a reputation for aggressiveness, some don't. Death Eaters pursue bad things, but we don't know all the DEs, there's certainly nothing in canon to say that all DEs are Slytherins. I'm not looking for the good Slytherin, I don't need to be shown one to conclude that Slytherin isn't a dumping ground for all that's bad. In the books, there's some good, some bad, a lot of neutral. Most Slytherins are neutral as are the other houses. Snape doesn't need to be pleasant - in fact if he was, he'd probably be killed quickly or lose his status as spy. & then we have the adults, who are ambigious. If JKR hadn't said Tonks was in Hufflepuff - I doubt you'd put her there. The characters are complex, the plot is complex, its too simplistic to just write off Slytherin as bad, all the other houses as good because we see the characters grow up - as much as they might have bought into their house affiliation early on, we see them act differently. I think JKR tried to present a neutral world, where characters do good or bad things. Some to an extreme but most in the middle or a mix of both. I don't think she was completely successful, but I don't see a black/white, good/evil world in the HPverse. Celoneth From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 14:12:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:12:29 -0000 Subject: Draco WAS: Re: Villain!Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177825 > Celoneth: > Why is Draco willing to sacrifice Buckbeak an example of extreme > ambition? or Draco willing to kill? With Buckbeak, certainly Hagrid > was at fault more than Draco by bringing a dangerous creature to > immature 13 year old. As for trying to get the hippogriff killed, it > was something that most of the school probably favoured or didn't care > about. Hagrid was a horrible teacher, something even Harry admits - > having him sacked as a teacher and returned to caretaker would have > benefitted the school imo. Alla: Trying to kill hypogriff is something whole school favoured? I do not remember that in canon. Regardless of how one feels about Hagrid teaching abilities, I think that what Draco did afterwards is ten times more despicable. Playing up his injury for all that was worth to make sure animal gets killed and Hagrid gets fired. I think it was despicable. IMO of course. And I say that if little bastard bothered to listen to what Hagrid was saying and **not** insult Buckbeak, maybe Hagrid would have a chance to become a better teacher and not regress. Hagrid is not a good teacher, but I remain convinced he could have become MUCH better one if Draco Malfoy did not contribute to that first lesson. IMO of course celoneth: As for Draco willing to kill - he was > acting under duress - if he didn't comply he and possibly his entire > family would have died - had this been real life and he succeeded, he > would have been found not culpable under the law. Alla: No, he was not acting under duress in the beginning of HBP, when he was happily bragging to his classmates that he is chosen and happy to serve the dark lord. If he was blackmailed from the beginning - different story IMO. He was happy to prepare assasination. I find it disgusting. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 14:55:22 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:55:22 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177826 > > Celoneth: > Why is Draco willing to sacrifice Buckbeak an example of extreme > ambition? or Draco willing to kill? With Buckbeak, certainly Hagrid > was at fault more than Draco by bringing a dangerous creature to > immature 13 year old. As for trying to get the hippogriff killed, it > was something that most of the school probably favoured or didn't care > about. Hagrid was a horrible teacher, something even Harry admits - > having him sacked as a teacher and returned to caretaker would have > benefitted the school imo. As for Draco willing to kill - he was > acting under duress - if he didn't comply he and possibly his entire > family would have died - had this been real life and he succeeded, he > would have been found not culpable under the law. Prep0strus: The Buckbeak issue was discussed quit a bit a few weeks ago, so I shouldn't get into it all again, but in real life there are dangerous classes - woodshop, to name just one. And the wizarding world is notoriously more dangerous. If Draco could a)listen to instructions and b)not act like a jerk to every living creature, he would have been fine. Everyone else liked the class, and the hippogriffs. Draco FAKED being still hurt to get others to do work for him, as well as pretending the hippogriff attack was unwarranted, while we know that based on the magical rules that apply, he caused it himself. And he was willing to let an innocent animal die for that. That is ambition. I think Alla addressed your next point more than well enough - Draco was enthused to join up with Voldemort. Turns out he didn't have the stomach for it, but he certainly made a good go at it. Celoneth: Slughorn has a > talent for picking out able students - how is this bad? He doesn't > refuse to teach all the other students, he doesn't mistreat them - > but he gives extra attention to those who have the potential to > succeed. The fact that he can pick out those that are talented is good > strategy and benefits them as much as himself. Most people act in > their own interest, I don't consider it a moral fault, its human and > its smart. Prep0strus: I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to be a likable Slytherin. He picks out not just those who are talent, but have contacts. And he gives them special treatment, and they get to go to special parties and have special food and kids who don't make the grade are very pointedly rejected. This is how he treats children. He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, and I think the story treats him with disdain. > > Celoneth: > The characters are not one trait to the exclusion of all else. Prep0strus: Of course not. I readily admitted the good guys have faults and the bad guys have good traits. But, viewing the characters broadly, we can see the ones that are portrayed in a positive light, though they have negative traits, and the ones portrayed in a negative light, though they may have positive traits. Snape, while fighting for good, is exceedingly unpleasant. He's bitter and lonely and treats children terribly. JKR even manages to make his physical appearance unpleasant. He is without question one of the 'good' guys. But he is not likable or pleasant in any way. Whereas Harry, while flawed in many, many ways, is still (to most of us) a likable, good person, who appears to try to be nice and kind. And, even if some DON'T like Harry, I think it's obvious we are supposed to like Harry. Celoneth: > I'm not looking for the good Slytherin, I don't need to be shown one > to conclude that Slytherin isn't a dumping ground for all that's bad. Prep0strus: I do. I feel that between the hat and the characters, that Slytherin has been a dumping ground for all that's bad. As much as there are flaws in the good characters, all the real evil that is done is done by Slytherins, aside from Peter's betrayal (which really seems like weakness akin to Draco, so if one were to defend Draco, I think Peter would be equally defensible). Why couldn't a Death Eater have been noted as anything other than Slytherin? We obviously disagree on the hat attributes, but it seems fairly obvious what JKR thinks of the Slytherin brand of ambition to me. And repeatedly noting their pureblood agenda isn't exactly a way to make them sympathetic. The other houses have a mixture of good and bad, ultimately resulting in mostly good, with a cast of good, flawed characters. Slytherin's primary ideals are to look out for number 1 and that purebloods are superior to others. They're associated with 'dark' magic and antisocial personalities. There is really no evidence presented that moves me in such a way to feel that the world is remotely neutral. In a fictional universe, without an example of something, I don't know why I should assume one exists. JKR took every opportunity she could to show Slytheirn in a bad light - we even got some historical nastiness in DH with the Baron killing the Grey Lady. Endless examples of Slytherin cruelty exist, and so, yes, I need an actual textual presence for me to think that the house is actually neutral, that the world is actually neutral. Simply because the real world is does not mean that the books are. Because that example does NOT exist. It's a created world - if it's not there, it's not there. I don't know that the world is black and white... but it's certainly very dark grey and slightly-offwhite. Let's call it charcoal and eggshell. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 8 15:10:34 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:10:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho Message-ID: <99530.12299.qm@web86205.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177827 Prep0strus: I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to be a likable Slytherin. He picks out not just those who are talent, but have contacts. And he gives them special treatment, and they get to go to special parties and have special food and kids who don't make the grade are very pointedly rejected. This is how he treats children. He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, and I think the story treats him with disdain. Irene: You are right that the story treats him with disdain, but that's the story's problem, not Slughorn's problem. > He picks out not just those who are talent, but have contacts. Yes, but talent alone is enough to get picked, you don't need contacts on top of the talent. I don't see what's wrong with that. > And he gives them special treatment Yes, and Lupin gives special lessons to Harry (not to mention Dumbledore), and McGonagall gives special treatment to Hermione, and Hagrid has special food for the trio. :-) And the story is OK with all of these cases, but not with Slughorn. Who is actually a very compentent teacher, I loved the first lesson. The way he got the children interested, and the way he gave them an excellent incentive. But of course midway into the first lesson Harry discovers the way to steal his (and Hermione's) thunder, so it all stops being important. Irene From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Oct 8 15:12:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:12:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho Message-ID: <17814759.1191856345123.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177828 zgirnius: >Umbridge commits various acts that rise to the level of evil, and she >is not a stated member of Slytherin House. Bart: She does appear to have a definite prejudice in favor of Slytherin, however. That would imply being a Slytherin herself. >Quirrell is not either. Nor is Lockhart, who tries to destroy the >minds of Harry and Ron to save his reputation. Bart: Gildylocks HAS wiped out memories of true heroes so that he could take advantage of their heroics. And he does seem to have a bit of a prejudice in favor of Gryffindor, and an obsession with being thought the hero. If I had to guess with the Turban, I'd put him as a Ravenclaw, in his quest for knowledge and his giving in to Morty's cold logic. >Nor is Barty Crouch, Jr. There are also several Death >Eaters, House unknown, some of whom committed acts of evil - the >Carrows, for example. Bart (no relation): Hard to say with Barty Jr. He was definitely recruited by the Death Eaters at a young age. And consider how fanatical his father was in pro/persecuting the Death Eaters, almost as if he had something to live down. Sr. and Jr. very well might have been Slytherins. Bart From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 8 15:53:46 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:53:46 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177829 > Prep0strus: > The Buckbeak issue was discussed quit a bit a few weeks ago, so I > shouldn't get into it all again, but in real life there are dangerous > classes - woodshop, to name just one. And the wizarding world is > notoriously more dangerous. If Draco could a)listen to instructions > and b)not act like a jerk to every living creature, he would have > been fine. Everyone else liked the class, and the hippogriffs. > Draco FAKED being still hurt to get others to do work for him, as > well as pretending the hippogriff attack was unwarranted, while we > know that based on the magical rules that apply, he caused it > himself. And he was willing to let an innocent animal die for > that. That is ambition. I think Alla addressed your next point > more than well enough - Draco was enthused to join up with > Voldemort. Turns out he didn't have the stomach for it, but he > certainly made a good go at it. Celoneth: Yes, there are dangerous classes but Hagrid's classes was more dangerous than most (and we see that Care of Magical Creatures isn't inherently dangerous by the other teacher). Even Harry admits deep down that Hagrid sucks as a teacher - a teacher should know the maturity of their students and whether they can handle a task. 13 year olds aren't mature, Draco certainly wasn't - its one thing for a woodshop teacher to guide students through a project, quite another to give them a chainsaw on the first day, a bit of instruction and tell them to go to work. & no, everyone didn't like the class - almost everyone disliked the vast majority of Hagrid's classes. Yes, Draco made his injury worse than it was, and took advantage of it - but that's more of an immature and spoiled 13 year old more than anything else. And yes Draco liked the idea of joining Voldemort in theory, once he found out what it entailed he wanted to back out but there's no way that he could, he didn't want to murder and torture but what could he have done - said no - and died? What good would that do? > Prep0strus: > I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to > be a likable Slytherin. He picks out not just those who are > talent, but have contacts. And he gives them special treatment, > and they get to go to special parties and have special food and > kids who don't make the grade are very pointedly rejected. This is > how he treats children. He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, > and I think the story treats him with disdain. Celoneth: Yes, he picks out those with talent, he gives them rewards for having talent - there's nothing wrong with that. If you have exceptional students in your class, for your, their and the world's interest you want to encourage them. He never mistreats the students he doesn't pick, he never insults them, he's a good, teacher. He's not pathetic - he's interested in living a good, comfortable life and he's achieved that (until Voldemort returned to human form) - what's wrong with that? What's wrong with acting in your self-interest? > Prep0strus: > > Of course not. I readily admitted the good guys have faults and the > bad guys have good traits. But, viewing the characters broadly, we > can see the ones that are portrayed in a positive light, though they > have negative traits, and the ones portrayed in a negative light, > though they may have positive traits. > > Snape, while fighting for good, is exceedingly unpleasant. He's > bitter and lonely and treats children terribly. JKR even manages to > make his physical appearance unpleasant. He is without question one > of the 'good' guys. But he is not likable or pleasant in any way. > Whereas Harry, while flawed in many, many ways, is still (to most of > us) a likable, good person, who appears to try to be nice and kind. > And, even if some DON'T like Harry, I think it's obvious we are > supposed to like Harry. Celoneth: What you see as positive light, I again see as neutral. I see very few good/bad characters in the book. Snape is unpleasant - not all people are pleasant, McGonagall isn't likeable or pleasant either, nor is Mad-Eye. Fudge, if you're on his good side, was probably a pleasant person to be around. Snape, however, out of all the characters in the entire book voluntarily undertakes the greatest risk. In the end, his means are justified and redeemed. Not to mention that a lot of the constant references to Snape being unpleasant were red herrings to make us question what side he was serving until the end. Harry's the hero, of course he's likeable. A lot of the people around Harry are, however, either likeable but very flawed or unlikeable and w/o flaws or somewhere in between. > Prep0strus: > I do. I feel that between the hat and the characters, that > Slytherin has been a dumping ground for all that's bad. As much as > there are flaws in the good characters, all the real evil that is > done is done by Slytherins, aside from Peter's betrayal (which > really seems like weakness akin to Draco, so if one were to defend > Draco, I think Peter would be equally defensible). Why couldn't a > Death Eater have been noted as anything other than Slytherin? We > obviously disagree on the hat attributes, but it seems fairly > obvious what JKR thinks of the Slytherin brand of ambition to me. > And repeatedly noting their pureblood agenda isn't exactly a way to > make them sympathetic. The other houses have a mixture of good and > bad, ultimately resulting in mostly good, with a cast of good, > flawed characters. Slytherin's primary ideals are to look out for > number 1 and that purebloods are superior to others. They're > associated with 'dark' magic and antisocial personalities. There > is really no evidence presented that moves me in such a way to feel > that the world is remotely neutral. In a fictional universe, > without an example of something, I don't know why I should assume > one exists. JKR took every opportunity she could to show Slytheirn > in a bad light - we even got some historical nastiness in DH with > the Baron killing the Grey Lady. Endless examples of Slytherin > cruelty exist, and so, yes, I need an actual textual presence for > me to think that the house is actually neutral, that the world is > actually neutral. Simply because the real world is does not mean > that the books are. Because that example does NOT exist. It's a > created world - if it's not there, it's not there. I don't know > that the world is black and white... but it's certainly very dark > grey and slightly-offwhite. Let's call it charcoal and eggshell. Celoneth: Maybe we're just looking at different things. While you see what's negative with Slytherin ambition - I see very clearly what's negative with Gryffindor recklessness, and the other houses. We get plenty of examples of the flaws of other houses. And it's only natural that Slytherins would be attracted to the "heir of Slytherin," with the Slytherin agenda as his number one goal. Had Dumbledore gone through with his plans as a youth, I think he'd have a lot of Gryffindor support for the same sort of evil acts just dressed up in different language. Characters are capable of good, they're capable of evil we see that with most of them - including with Slytherins - that's why I'd characterise them as neutral. I guess this is something we'll have to agree to disagree on because clearly I'm not going to change your opinion, nor will you change mine. Celoneth From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 17:13:54 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:13:54 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177830 > Prep0strus: > I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to > be a likable Slytherin. He picks out not just those who are > talent, but have contacts. And he gives them special treatment, > and they get to go to special parties and have special food and > kids who don't make the grade are very pointedly rejected. This is > how he treats children. He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, > and I think the story treats him with disdain. Mike: Irene and I may be in the minority, but I too liked Slughorn. I suppose it was that first impression that sealed the deal for me. All that amazing magic he did preparing the house for DD's and Harry's arrival. Then ole Sluggy said about Umbridge "Idiotic Woman. Never liked her.", I was sold. Needless to say, I disagreed with Harry's initial impression of Sluggy. I don't think he was a pureblood fanatic at all. He just had old ideas about magic and magical abilities which were born out, imo, by him choosing a 50+ year old text for potions class. He liked Lily Evans and even wanted her for his House. I think he's an example of the type of Slytherin we'd get if Tom Riddle didn't hijack the House. That Riddle was able to hijack Slytherin out from under Sluggy, is his fault. But I actually blame Dumbledore more for that than I do Sluggy. Dumbledore was privledged to catch Riddle in an unguarded situation, so he knew of Tom's potential for cruelty. Dumbledore was also aware of Riddle's ability to "charm" others, as well as being aware that Riddle didn't try the same with him. I think that makes Dumbledore irresponsible for not at least alerting Riddle's HOH about his propensity for evil so Sluggy could have been put on his guard. As to Sluggy's special treatment of the talented, Irene already addressed that quite well. I'll just add that Harry sure seemed to change his opinion of Sluggy once Sluggy began praising Harry's (unearned) potions brilliance. I don't think Harry began to "like" Slughorn, but he no longer found him exactly disagreeable. And uninvited is not the same as rejected. Sluggy has just as much right as anyone else to associate with whom he pleases on his own time. Not everyone gets to be on the Quidditch team either. > Prep0strus: > > > > Snape, while fighting for good, is exceedingly unpleasant. He's > bitter and lonely and treats children terribly. JKR even manages to > make his physical appearance unpleasant. He is without question one > of the 'good' guys. But he is not likable or pleasant in any way. Mike: I have been reading this thread and your opinions about Slytherin for a while. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you, like me, have no problem with JKR portraying Slytherin as the "bad guy" house. That is, JKR chose to create a house from which eminates almost all the of the abominations in the WW, and in a work of fiction that's just fine. Notwithstanding fandom's desire for House unity, Slytherin redemption, or to find that "one good Slytherin", JKR never intended to ameliorate what she presented as the initial impression of the predominant Slytherinesque character, imo. And again, this doesn't bother me when reading a work of fiction. She did include ambiguities in some of the Slytherin characters, and even made some of the Slytherins ultimately good. But she never wavered in presenting *Slytherin House* as the place that needed a good power washing. She could have corrected that impression and/or given Slytherin that power wash but she did neither. Failed oppurtunity, poor or lazy writing? Perhaps. I prefer to believe that JKR painted Slytherin as "bad" from the get go and didn't want anything to dilute that message. > > Celoneth: > > I'm not looking for the good Slytherin, > > Slytherin isn't a dumping ground for all that's bad. > > Prep0strus: > I do. I feel that between the hat and the characters, that > Slytherin has been a dumping ground for all that's bad. Mike: A slight disagreement here. I think it was Slytherin House's predominant personality cult that was bad, not that all the people sorted into Slytherin were bad. But of course, once sorted in, even a good character bombarded by that predominant opinion (and with their presumed predisposition for that kind of thinking) would probably change their tune. I think this may have been the case for Snape. I don't think he used the term "Mudblood" before starting school. And though he was probably aware of the WW prejudice, or just Slytherin's, against Muggleborns, I'm not convinced he agreed with that position prior to entering Slytherin House. Mike, an unrepentant Sluggy fan ;) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 17:30:40 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:30:40 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177831 > >>Prep0strus: > > > > I feel that between the hat and the characters, that Slytherin > > has been a dumping ground for all that's bad. As much as > > there are flaws in the good characters, all the real evil that is > > done is done by Slytherins, aside from Peter's betrayal (which > > really seems like weakness akin to Draco, so if one were to defend > > Draco, I think Peter would be equally defensible). Why couldn't a > > Death Eater have been noted as anything other than Slytherin? We > > obviously disagree on the hat attributes, but it seems fairly > > obvious what JKR thinks of the Slytherin brand of ambition to me. > > Betsy Hp: To me that's the real sticking point: what did the author want to put across to her readers? And I have to agree with you, that despite her interview which seemed to make statements to the contrary, Slytherin is the house of all that is bad. I think where things get complicated is that what JKR sees as bad and what her readers see as bad don't always match up. > >>Prep0strus: > > In a fictional universe, without an example of something, I don't > > know why I should assume one exists. JKR took every opportunity > > she could to show Slytheirn in a bad light - we even got some > > historical nastiness in DH with the Baron killing the Grey Lady. > > Endless examples of Slytherin cruelty exist, and so, yes, I need > > an actual textual presence for me to think that the house is > > actually neutral, that the world is actually neutral. Simply > > because the real world is does not mean that the books are. > > Because that example does NOT exist. It's a created world - if > > it's not there, it's not there. I don't know that the world is > > black and white... but it's certainly very dark grey and slightly- > > offwhite. Let's call it charcoal and eggshell. Betsy Hp: I think it's that "charcoal and eggshell" coloring that threw JKR's world off. Because there were nasty things done by Gryffindor's (blood judgement, hissing at smaller children, bad sportsmanship, possibly accidental but never worried about almost murder, muggle baiting, etc.) that completely turned me off of them as a House. And there were Slytherin moments (specifically where Draco was concerned) that made me think there was more to the story than simply, this kid's a bad egg and nothing good will ever come of him. So I gravitated away from Gryffindor and towards Slytherin. But then, all of a sudden (IMO it was sudden anyway) JKR made her world black and white. No Slytherin joined Neville's rebellion. All of Slytherin walked out of the fight. They weren't neutral at all. They were evil, dark, nasty. And since I'd been relating to them more than the Gryffindors it was a bit of a slap in the face. Actually, it was incredibly disturbing to me, because characters I'd been seeing as individualized were suddenly (for me) forced into a rather ugly stereotype. It would have been better in the long run, I think, if JKR had never humanized Slytherin in the first place. Then it'd have been hard to accuse her of turning around and de-humanizing them. > >>Celoneth: > Maybe we're just looking at different things. While you see what's > negative with Slytherin ambition - I see very clearly what's > negative with Gryffindor recklessness, and the other houses. > Betsy Hp: I do as well. But I think JKR did not. DH ends with Harry never facing some of his own flaws. None of the Gryffindor characters really have to face any of the flaws I saw them as having. Whereas Slytherin is denied any sort of goodness and turned out of Hogwarts. > >>Celoneth: > Characters are capable of good, they're capable of evil we see that > with most of them - including with Slytherins - that's why I'd > characterise them as neutral. > Betsy Hp: Again, that's how I saw all of the characters, and most especially, the Houses. But it's hard for me to see the end of DH as anything but a repudiation of Slytherin. Apparently, they are the source of everything wrong in the WW. I suppose the death of Voldemort and their being publically exposed as rotten is the "dilution" JKR spoke of, but since she wrote in a not so black and white way, the black and white ending struck a false note with me. (It surprises me that JKR actually linked the Houses with the elements, which by definition should be neutral. Frankly that interview regarding Slytherin makes me wonder what the heck she thought she was writing in DH. What on earth was she leading the reader towards? And why does Hogwarts keep Slytherin around? It's a mystery. Or at least, I find the most probable answer pretty disturbing.) Betsy Hp From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 17:40:37 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:40:37 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Prep0strus: > > I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to be a likable Slytherin. He picks out not just those who are > > talent, but have contacts. And he gives them special treatment, > > and they get to go to special parties and have special food and > > kids who don't make the grade are very pointedly rejected. This is how he treats children. He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, > > and I think the story treats him with disdain. > > Mike: > Irene and I may be in the minority, but I too liked Slughorn. I > suppose it was that first impression that sealed the deal for me. All that amazing magic he did preparing the house for DD's and Harry's arrival. Then ole Sluggy said about Umbridge "Idiotic Woman. Never liked her.", I was sold. > > Needless to say, I disagreed with Harry's initial impression of > Sluggy. I don't think he was a pureblood fanatic at all. He just had old ideas about magic and magical abilities which were born out, imo, by him choosing a 50+ year old text for potions class. He liked Lily Evans and even wanted her for his House. I think he's an example of the type of Slytherin we'd get if Tom Riddle didn't hijack the House. <<>> ***Katie: I, too, liked Slughorn...at least, as a character. Unlike some people in the books, who I think I would like in real life, I probably wouldn't like Slughorn too much in reality. I would probably find him annoying and more than a little silly. But he was a beautifully drawn and colorful character, who I think made an instant impact on the other characters and the story. Mostly, I find Slughorn funny. He's comic relief of a smarter kind than Dobby or Grawp, and I found his whole image to be amusing. I like to think of him holding court, with his crytalized pineapple and his smoking jackets, busting out of his clothes and thinking he is ever-so-suave. He strikes me as someone who certainly doesn't mean to be funny, but almost always is! And I certainly never, ever got the impression that he was a pure- blood kinda guy, or that he was a bad person in any way. Maybe self- serving and self-involved, but not in a harmful way. And I felt he did have genuine affection for those students admitted to his inner circle. He certainly had loyalty to the school, to Dumbledore, and to the "good side". I always considered Slughorn "one of us". I think Slughorn is actually the perfect example of a "good Slytherin", because, unlike Snape (who is more Gryff than Slyth, at least IMO), Slughorn actually embodies characteristics of Slytherin House, and is still a good guy. He's ambitious, self-serving, and cunning...but none of it is harmful (at least, not on purpose). So, he really is a Slytherin, and he is really is a good person. In fact, he's the only Slyth I can think of who actually acts like a Slyth and is still good. All JKR's other examples (Snape, Regulus...) embody more Gryff characteristics than Slyth. Anyway, just wanted to jump on the "We like Sluggy" bandwagon. Done now. : ) Katie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 17:50:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:50:38 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177833 > Mike: > Irene and I may be in the minority, but I too liked Slughorn. I > suppose it was that first impression that sealed the deal for me. All > that amazing magic he did preparing the house for DD's and Harry's > arrival. Then ole Sluggy said about Umbridge "Idiotic Woman. Never > liked her.", I was sold. > > Needless to say, I disagreed with Harry's initial impression of > Sluggy. I don't think he was a pureblood fanatic at all. He just had > old ideas about magic and magical abilities which were born out, imo, > by him choosing a 50+ year old text for potions class. He liked Lily > Evans and even wanted her for his House. I think he's an example of > the type of Slytherin we'd get if Tom Riddle didn't hijack the House. > > That Riddle was able to hijack Slytherin out from under Sluggy, is > his fault. But I actually blame Dumbledore more for that than I do > Sluggy. Dumbledore was privledged to catch Riddle in an unguarded > situation, so he knew of Tom's potential for cruelty. Magpie: I've said this before, but I just don't get it. Whether or not he's a fanatic, how are his "old ideas" any less bigoted? I can't believe anybody, if faced with a guy saying, "Ah yes, your mother was black. Could have knocked me over with a feather, she was so bright! Funny how that happens sometimes!" Or: "Your mother was very good at math-- can you imagine? A girl good at math!" Who cares if it's "old-fashioned?" Not that I'm conceding that it is- -I'm not. He's still picking out kids for different treatment based on their bloodline. Everybody likes to push "talent" as Slughorn's method of choosing people, but I think that's a mischaracterization. Slughorn is never ever portrayed as some guy strictly hunting out talent. If a non-entity or a Muggle-born shows exceptional talent to the point where it's star quality in his eyes he'll see them as somebody who can give him something, but they don't start off equal to the boy from a good Pure-blood family. Good family connections or social connections, if not ruined by some other consideration, are just as important as talent. By the same token, talent ruined by some other drawback will keep you out. In fact, the very idea of looking for the most talented is explicitly disassociated from the Slug Club when McClaggen nudge nudges Harry about putting him on the Quidditch team because they're both in the Club--which is the way the club is supposed to work. That's the way Old Boy's Clubs work in the real world, even after they started to admit girls into them. I think the whole idea of Slughorn's (and sometimes Phineas') bigotry being "old-fashioned" comes from the sketchy world-building. Who says it's old-fashioned in canon? Nobody that we see. I think we get that impression by bringing our own world into it. Why does his Slug Club from the past only have Pureblood males in it? Because it's like the 50s in our world, when they would have been privilged and male. Yet in the WW they're not supposed to have had that sort of history. I think JKR's just drawing on the images we have from the past there. Same with Muggle-borns. There's nothing in canon to suggest views on Muggle-borns follow the same evolution as views on other races in our world, but that seems to me to be the assumption in suggesting that Slughorn's just too old to not think this way, and therefore his views are harmless. (Also sometimes to suggest that the word "Mudblood" isn't offensive when Phineas says it.) Nor is Slughorn a particularly good teacher that I can see. Oh, there are plenty at Hogwarts that are at his level--the school doesn't have the greatest record. He's not particularly bad either in some areas. But what we see isn't particularly impressive. He has kids make potions from a book, they all struggle with it (including Hermione) and then he praises Harry alone, without much in the way of instructions for others--in fact he usually makes a point of chalking up Harry's talent to his bloodline. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of serious students preferred Snape over this guy. Certainly I suspect they'd respect him more. The guy's kind of begging to be sucked up to for rewards. So yeah, this is one of those places I think show just how little the book says about bigotry, because Slughorn's stated bigotry gets defended because he's not killing anybody and has no stomach for Death Eater-dom. The fact that he promoted what seems to be the whole core group of DEs doesn't count--his house was "hijacked" out from under him by Tom Riddle. If only he hadn't come along they would have had Slughorn's polite bigotry. Tom ruined it by making it violent. I see the two as connected at base, others don't. Mike: > As to Sluggy's special treatment of the talented, Irene already > addressed that quite well. I'll just add that Harry sure seemed to > change his opinion of Sluggy once Sluggy began praising Harry's > (unearned) potions brilliance. I don't think Harry began to "like" > Slughorn, but he no longer found him exactly disagreeable. And > uninvited is not the same as rejected. Sluggy has just as much right > as anyone else to associate with whom he pleases on his own time. Not > everyone gets to be on the Quidditch team either. Magpie: Err...and that's good? That Harry first bristled at Slughorn stating that his mother surprised him by being talented because she was a Muggleborn, and then softened up after the guy praised him for talent he didn't have, which he chalked up to his blood? I know some might think I'm being too hard on Harry, or expecting him to be a goody-two-shoes, but if somebody's supposed to be a hero in a book against bigotry, I'd expect him to reject his own priviledge not be charged with defending the status quo. I certainly wouldn't expect a book whose villain is defined by bigoted belief to lead to the conclusion that the attitude we see Slughorn expressing and acting on is harmless. Though this isn't the only place where I feel the same kind of disconnect in the books. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 17:51:01 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:51:01 -0000 Subject: Houses of lesser villains (WAS Re: Villain!Dumbledore...) In-Reply-To: <17814759.1191856345123.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177834 > zgirnius: > >Umbridge commits various acts that rise to the level of evil, and she > >is not a stated member of Slytherin House. > > Bart: > She does appear to have a definite prejudice in favor of Slytherin, however. That would imply being a Slytherin herself. zgirnius: I thought it was the other way around. Slytherin was on the side of Umbridge and the Ministry against Dumbledore and Harry, denying the return of Voldemort. (In the case of the Slytherins that furthered this policy, they knew darned well he was back, but saw the advantage of keeping this a secret - e. g. Lucius Malfoy and Draco.) So naturally she wound up favoring them - they were the ones helping her. I tend to guess Dolly Dearest is a Hufflepuff, showing the dark side of those traits, hard-working and loyal to the Ministry. > Bart: > >Quirrell is not either. Nor is Lockhart, who tries to destroy the > >minds of Harry and Ron to save his reputation. > > Bart: > Gildylocks HAS wiped out memories of true heroes so that he could take advantage of their heroics. And he does seem to have a bit of a prejudice in favor of Gryffindor, and an obsession with being thought the hero. If I had to guess with the Turban, I'd put him as a Ravenclaw, in his quest for knowledge and his giving in to Morty's cold logic. zgirnius: Yes, those would be my guesses too. And I agree Gildylocks did wipe the memories of others - I was just focusing on his transgressions within the story, as opposed to in his past. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 18:30:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:30:16 -0000 Subject: Villain!Dumbledore // Cunning in Slytherins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177835 > johnson_fan4evre48: > Jen, I do agree with you on some of your points but others I do > not. I would like to know what you think of the fact that Regulus > did choose to leave the DE's. He was a Slytherin that went bad > and chose to be good. As did Snape. > So many people have made the remark that all those who went to > Slytherin went bad, (as Ron Weasley said SS) I agree with you on > the point that Slughorn did not go bad but he did have it in his > mind that half bloods were inferior to whole bloods, and was > always truly exceptionally suprised to see Half blood or people > like Hermione. > > It leads people to believe that the struggle within was always > about the purity of one's heart, being the life force of all > magic had to do with the blood. Jen: I think you're saying you see Regulus and Snape as good for making the choices they did, but I'm a little confused which side you're coming down on in the rest of your post? Do you see Slytherin house as all bad or evil and some escape their fate, like Snape or Regulus? In my last post, my main point was that I see Slytherin house presented as tainted by wanting to teach 'those whose ancesty is purest,' all the way back to the time when Salazar Slytherin chose that particular criteria for his house. I also think since the hat says 1) 'nothing is hidden' in a child's mind; 2) children are shown to have some choice in the sorting process; and 3) there are no Muggleborns in Slytherin, there's a strong likelihood that children sorted to Slytherin have some belief going in that they are superior to other kids for a an inborn reason - almost royalty in other words, a concept that appears in the story several times with the Black family and the Half-Blood Prince. For some who grew up in families with a strong prejudice against non-purebloods, like Draco, that translates to pure-blood superiority. For others like Snape, Slytherin was seen as the superior house in Slytherin families for someone already showing signs of being gifted in magical ability. (That's not exactly stated in text but since Snape considered it the house of brains and his potions book indicated he was gifted, I'm extrapolating he believed Slytherin was the place to hone his natural gifts. Also, Lily's magical ability attracted him just as Slughorn is attracted to natural talent regardless of blood. I see it as a permutation of blood superiority in Slytherin house. IOW, if someone can't be pureblood, they can still be superior by natural magical talent.) Any wizard sorted into Sytherin who had the ability to overcome a prejudice was a character I read positively in the story. Characters who realized human attributes of love, loyalty, or remorse meant more than inborn traits were exhibiting some level of change and growth in the story imo. All Slytherins started from behind though, because the point of the story was to reject that someone can be great merely by circumstances of which family they are born into or if they are born magically gifted in a Slytherin family. I don't translate that to mean all Slytherins are bad or evil though. It was more an overturning of a blue-blood, royal ideaology in favor of a more populist, power to the people agenda. johnson_fan4evre48: > With all the knowlege the hat had why did he allow the children > to choose. He could of steered the weaker ones away so they could > become better and bolder witches and wizards. > > To continue on with my answer was I feel the Sorting Hat has as > much to deal with the prejudice in the houses as well as all the > other charaters. > > I also feel the Heads of Houses did not alleviate it either but to > put all the blame on one House was a bit much. Jen: I didn't read the hat as capable of acting on its own past whatever 'brains' were put in there by the founders. If children can choose, that means it's written into the hat's script for how to quarter the school. Re: putting the blame on one house, yes, there was a flaw inherent in the system that was never addressed and finally came to a head in the story. There's not much information about why it took centuries for the problem to come to a head. My guess is the story is supposed to mirror the story of the four founders, that the four houses were able to work together for many centuries but Slytherin house, like Salazar Slytherin, would eventually split off from the others again and Voldemort was the catalyst for the second split as Slytherin's heir. Jen From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 18:42:31 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:42:31 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177836 Mike: > As to Sluggy's special treatment of the talented, Irene already > addressed that quite well. I'll just add that Harry sure seemed to > change his opinion of Sluggy once Sluggy began praising Harry's > (unearned) potions brilliance. I don't think Harry began to "like" > Slughorn, but he no longer found him exactly disagreeable. And > uninvited is not the same as rejected. Sluggy has just as much right > as anyone else to associate with whom he pleases on his own time. Not > everyone gets to be on the Quidditch team either. Prep0strus: Another poster mentioned liking Sluggy as a character. I think I did as well, but since at this point in the story I was expecting a character from Slytherin I could also like as a person, I was disappointed. And you're right about who Sluggy is allowed to consort with - he's not evil, or even 'bad'. But I would hate him in real life. He's not searching for talent, and he's not befriending a few students. He's systematically trying to make a network of contacts to aggrandize himself. He seems a weak, small little man who has given up larger ambitions to become the king of his own little universe of people who he thinks are important. He'll suck up to a child if he thinks the child will mention him to their important uncle, and for the most part, he doesn't care about the morality of the person, though he does want to stay away from anything truly controversial, because he's a coward. He's a fun character, in both books, and a different side of Slytherin, but not someone I'd want to spend any time with, and not someone I admire in the least. > Mike: > I have been reading this thread and your opinions about Slytherin for > a while. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you, like me, have no > problem with JKR portraying Slytherin as the "bad guy" house. That > is, JKR chose to create a house from which eminates almost all the of > the abominations in the WW, and in a work of fiction that's just > fine. Notwithstanding fandom's desire for House unity, Slytherin > redemption, or to find that "one good Slytherin", JKR never intended > to ameliorate what she presented as the initial impression of the > predominant Slytherinesque character, imo. > > And again, this doesn't bother me when reading a work of fiction. She > did include ambiguities in some of the Slytherin characters, and even > made some of the Slytherins ultimately good. But she never wavered in > presenting *Slytherin House* as the place that needed a good power > washing. She could have corrected that impression and/or given > Slytherin that power wash but she did neither. Failed oppurtunity, > poor or lazy writing? Perhaps. I prefer to believe that JKR painted > Slytherin as "bad" from the get go and didn't want anything to dilute > that message. > Prep0strus: Well, I was going to back away from the discussion because at some point I feel like I'm just furthering an argument rather than furthering real discussion. But, since you asked, I guess... I'm not sure. I'm a little disappointed, because I expected a little more. The hints that were given along the way that there WAS more led me to expect something that wasn't there, and that's a little disappointing. It's not the biggest disappointment I have - I'm more upset over dropped character threads like Draco's. Perhaps that's related, but not necessarily - Draco's story in HBP was interesting on its own merits, and I was very disappointed in where that went in DH. I think the whole conclusion was messy - with wand rules we've never really heard before, bizarre coincidences, and triple or quadruple layers of protection on Harry that no one seems quite positive how to work out. Top it all off with a strange premise of ineffectual thumb twirling for the majority of the book, and it's certainly not my favorite book or what I feel is a worthy conclusion. But simply having a group in work of fiction, especially children's fiction, that represents things that are bad? No, I don't have a real problem with that. The people who are most upset seem to be those who identified with Slytherin, thinking that they would be vindicated later on, just to find out that no, Slytherin is bad. Of course, some maintain the houses have been shown to be equal, which I just don't understand. I also don't understand identifying with Slytherin. I get not identifying with Gryffindor. But to identify with Slytherin, when they're clearly shown so negatively, I don't understand. I mean, I too believed we would see more from them, but from what we saw, it was basically selfishness, nastiness, and bigotry. The kids, the adults - they all seemed simply mean to other people, assured in their own superiority, with a dash of racism thrown in. It startles me as it appears to startle JKR that anyone would want to associate themselves with that. > Mike: > A slight disagreement here. I think it was Slytherin House's > predominant personality cult that was bad, not that all the people > sorted into Slytherin were bad. But of course, once sorted in, even a > good character bombarded by that predominant opinion (and with their > presumed predisposition for that kind of thinking) would probably > change their tune. I think this may have been the case for Snape. I > don't think he used the term "Mudblood" before starting school. And > though he was probably aware of the WW prejudice, or just > Slytherin's, against Muggleborns, I'm not convinced he agreed with > that position prior to entering Slytherin House. > > Mike, an unrepentant Sluggy fan ;) > Prep0strus: Well, it's hard for me to figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg. I don't know the people before they were sorted in. I also don't really know how sorting works. It appears to be a complex mix of genetics, desire, talent, and personality. Snape wanted Slytherin before going to school, and he knew something about it. How much he knew is unknown. He did seem to have a fairly high opinion of himself. But did the hat put him there because he wanted to be there? Was he put there because his mother was? Was he put there because of how cunning and ambitious he was? Was he put there because of a deep attraction to the Dark Arts? Was he put there because he was of a bitter, lonely, and vindictive nature that would leave him open to manipulation by people like Voldemort? Was he put there to fill the hat's quota of half-bloods? Again, because it's fiction, and not the real world, I don't know that the house can be blamed for the way its students turned out. They may have been unpleasant people even without a house of unpleasantness to hone their skills in. Or, they might have become something else if they were somewhere else. It seems an academic exercise if it's acknowledged that however they go in, they come out bad (which not all acknowledge). I don't know the answer. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 8 17:43:17 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:43:17 -0000 Subject: Family and Other Loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177837 > > Alla: > > I say she wanted to write **nasty** characters - Snape and > > Lockhart and she wrote them. I do **not** know that she wrote > > them **because** she wanted to exercise revenge over real people. > lizzyben: > Snape & Lockhart are based on real people, and are the only ones > known to be from real life (AFAIK). And just because they're based > on real people doesn't mean that they were only introduced for > revenge purposes, cause that's not what I believe. They're just > models for the "bad guys". JKR is just really, really good as > creating these nasty villains; and those villains usually do get > their comeuppance in the end. Winterfell responds: Whether or not JKR wrote characters based on real people or not, whether she had fun writing about revenge or not, my point was that she did not write about revenge solely because it was fun to do so. I believe she wrote about revenge in part perhaps at times because it was fun for her to do so, but primarily because it was essential to a future plot thread, or because it developed her characters in ways she wanted to do so. I simply did not feel that JKR was so irresponsible a novelist as to put elements of revenge in her works only for purely selfish and/or personal reasons or only to exact some kind of revenge against real life people from her own past. I think she cared too much about the story and it's inevitable outcome to do that. IM, her revenge issues in the books had literary purposes as well. Winterfell From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 20:15:55 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:15:55 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177838 > Magpie: > I've said this before, but I just don't get it. Whether or not he's > a fanatic, how are his "old ideas" any less bigoted? Mike: Why should I think that someone in the Potterverse under the impression that purebloods would be inheritantly more magical than Muggleborns is bigoted? Please note, I'm saying and I think Slughorn is portrayed as believing *more magical*, not better people, not untarnished, and not superior quality wizards. There is a difference in the way Slughorn's "ideas" are presented. IMO, he isn't shown as being bigoted based on blood status. He is shown as believing that a pure-blood witch or wizard will be more *talented*. Which is not the same as saying Muggleborns are bad people. > Magpie: > I can't believe anybody, if faced with a guy saying, "Ah yes, your > mother was black. Could have knocked me over with a feather, she > was so bright! Funny how that happens sometimes!" Or: "Your mother > was very good at math--can you imagine? A girl good at math!" Mike: I wouldn't couch any of the bigotry in these books as racial. Based on the Nazi imagery that I thought JKR was paralleling, I would call it ethnic. So it was more like, "Your mother was a helluva distance runner. Never would have guessed she was Jewish." And if Jewish people weren't historically known for their distance running... does that make him prejudicial against Jewish people? Yes, but not necessarily bigoted. Bigoted connotes dislike or disfavor based on the ethnic condition, imo. I don't read that in Slughorn. (BTW, I have NO IDEA if Jewish people are or aren't good distance runners, it's just an example.) > Magpie: > Who cares if it's "old-fashioned?" Not that I'm conceding that it > is--I'm not. He's still picking out kids for different treatment > based on their bloodline. Mike: I care, and I disagree. I think people should be judged in context. If Slughorn's ideas are misshapen by the predominant opinion of a bygone era that he was brought up to believe, that should be taken into account. That's the way I read the books, that in the past it was commonly thought that pure-bloods would be more *talented* wizards. The real measuring stick is whether Slughorn has changed with the times. I think he has softened his position with regards to Muggleborns. He's quite taken with Hermione right off the bat, and only after does he realizes she is the Muggleborn that Harry spoke of. As for picking out kids based on bloodline, explain Ron. Sluggy's already drafted his younger sister (based on hexing talent not blood). What taint does Ron exhibit that precludes him from getting this supposed "blood" preference? > Magpie: > I think the whole idea of Slughorn's (and sometimes Phineas') > bigotry being "old-fashioned" comes from the sketchy world- > building. Who says it's old-fashioned in canon? Nobody that we see. Mike: I don't concede that Slughorn is bigoted, not in my view of the term nor in my impression of Slughorn. If you want to discuss whether Slughorn's view that pure-blood wizards are more talented is old- fashioned, that I'll address, and to some degree I already did above. As to the rest, yes, I'm sure I'm drawing on real world history to think the talented pure-blood motif was handed down. I don't think it an untenable position especially if, as you said, JKR was probably counting on us to draw that parallel from RL images. > Magpie: > Err...and that's good? That Harry first bristled at Slughorn > stating that his mother surprised him by being talented because she > was a Muggleborn, and then softened up after the guy praised him > for talent he didn't have, which he chalked up to his blood? Mike: Who said it was good? I just said I had a different initial impression than Harry, and that Harry changed his impression. Though he still probably never actually "liked" Slughorn. I liked the guy and I still do. Harry has come off the dime from his initial impression, that's all. BTW, which he chalked up to his *Mother's Muggleborn* blood. At what point do we give Slughorn credit for seeing past his prejudices towards Muggleborns to realize that they are just as good? I've been given enough examples to see that Slughorn doesn't act on those prejudices, at least not any more. And I call them prejudices, not bigotry. Mike From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 8 21:40:41 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:40:41 +0100 Subject: Slughorn, slytherins etc. Message-ID: <470AA3D9.8050901@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177839 It's not that I love him that much, it's just seems to me that he is as good as Slytherins can get, and if the author positions even him as a bad character, then what hope for the rest of them? Just consider: he is firmly established as NOT being a Voldemort supporter. He went to great lengths and considerable discomfort not to be found by death eaters. Was he afraid to be killed by Voldy for knowing about Horcuxes? Probably not, because he had no way of knowing the extent of Voldy's madness and paranoia by that point. Most likely he was afraid of being recruited. Now, that's an offer you can't refuse. In Hogwarts, he makes no secret of admiring Harry Potter. Basically, he has completely thrown his lot with the good side. I've discussed his club in my previous post, so I can only reiterate - I see nothing wrong with it. YMMV, obviously. So, the only thing we, as readers, are invited to hold against him remains - he wasn't immediately enthusiastic about fighting Voldemort in the battle of Hogwarts. I don't have my book with me, but I believe his words were "Is it wise?" And of course it was not wise; if not for Harry's sacrifice and all the unique magic that was involved, all the Hogwarts defenders would be dead, eventually. And that's the fundamental difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin: when facing unsurmountable odds, the Gryffindor's answer seems to be "Bring it on!" while Slytherin would say "Thank you, I'd rather live to fight another day". Any healthy society needs both of these extremes to survive. While the books seem to insist that Gryffindor's attitude is the only right one, I disagree. Irene From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 21:55:49 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:55:49 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, slytherins etc. In-Reply-To: <470AA3D9.8050901@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: >> So, the only thing we, as readers, are invited to hold against him > remains - he wasn't immediately enthusiastic about fighting Voldemort in > the battle of Hogwarts. I don't have my book with me, but I believe his > words were "Is it wise?" And of course it was not wise; if not for > Harry's sacrifice and all the unique magic that was involved, all the > Hogwarts defenders would be dead, eventually. Alla: And just consider the evolution Slughorn undergoes IMO within the series. Only year ago we see him running away from DE, only year ago. And now he returns to fight. Sure, he had his doubts, but he returns to fight. I thought that was amasing personally. Irene: > And that's the fundamental difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin: > when facing unsurmountable odds, the Gryffindor's answer seems to be > "Bring it on!" while Slytherin would say "Thank you, I'd rather live to > fight another day". > > Any healthy society needs both of these extremes to survive. While the > books seem to insist that Gryffindor's attitude is the only right one, I > disagree. Alla: Hm, I am not really intending to argue over this, I am just saying that if Slytherins' attitude was like that - "live to fight another day", I would completely agree with you actually. To me it seems that many Slytherins have an attitude - thank you, I would rather **live**, period. IMO,It is certainly takes same if not more courage to survive to continue fighting or just living and doing right thing, but if survival is achieved by siding with the maniac, then I do not think that it is what healthy society needs. And again, I am not saying that all Slytherins did that, I just cannot give respect to those characters who decide to save their skins and everything else be damned. And of course my opinion is strictly limited to book verse and the times of extreme situations, etc. I mean, how can we in RL know that we are brave enough to fight in the war or anything like that, unless we are forced to live through it. But in the fantasy genre, I will take those who fight for what's right over those who save their skins at any time. IMO of course, Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 22:04:07 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:04:07 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, slytherins etc. In-Reply-To: <470AA3D9.8050901@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177841 Irene: > > It's not that I love him that much, it's just seems to me that he is as > good as Slytherins can get, and if the author positions even him as a > bad character, then what hope for the rest of them? > Prep0strus: This is it, exactly. What hope IS there for the rest of them? I think, not much. Because I agree that he is as good as Slytherins can get - and I think he's significantly worse than you do. Irene: > > So, the only thing we, as readers, are invited to hold against him > remains - he wasn't immediately enthusiastic about fighting Voldemort in > the battle of Hogwarts. > Prep0strus: And this is where I disagree. Because I don't believe the only thing we are invited to hold against him is his reluctance to fight. I think he completely makes up for that, and even his previous cowardice, in returning to the castle to fight. What I dislike about Slughorn has little to do with his cowardice - the primary anti-Gryffindor trait we see in him from his first scene up until the moment he decides to return to Hogwarts at the end of DH. What I dislike about him is not his lack of Gryffindor qualities, but the presence of Slytherin qualities. His selfishness, his greed. His self image is what matters to him. His club is a way for him to take anyone who he thinks can do anything for him and suck up to them. It can be about talent, but that's not what it's primarily about. It's about what they, or people they know, can do for Slughorn. It's about how it makes Slughorn feel to have these kids around him, to have those adults out there that he thinks he can take credit for. It's his own little universe, and if you don't fit in, you're out. Social cliques are hard enough when they are orchestrated by the kids themselves - a professor should not be encouraging that, especially not for his own benefit. Who wants to be the kid that isn't passed the candy? Who isn't given the invitation? Who is obviously not deemed worthy of the cool kids club? The entire thing is slimy and inappropriate, because it exists for the sake of Sluggy's ego. It is Slytherin, without the evil - no murder, no genocide. Just soft bigotry, exclusion, and slimy back-door ambition. Slughorn is kind of a delicious character, but if he's as good as Slytherin can get, then Slytherin is certainly the gutter. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 23:05:08 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:05:08 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > Nor is Slughorn a particularly good teacher that I can see. Oh, > there are plenty at Hogwarts that are at his level--the school > doesn't have the greatest record. He's not particularly bad either > in some areas. But what we see isn't particularly impressive. He has > kids make potions from a book, they all struggle with it (including > Hermione) and then he praises Harry alone, without much in the way > of instructions for others--in fact he usually makes a point of > chalking up Harry's talent to his bloodline. I wouldn't be surprised > if plenty of serious students preferred Snape over this guy. > Certainly I suspect they'd respect him more. The guy's kind of > begging to be sucked up to for rewards. Montavilla47: Thank you, Magpie. You are pointing to the exact same things that bother me about Slughorn as a person or the representative "Good Slytherin." I can see him as an affectionate nod to old-time racism as he prattles on about how some of his best students (friends) are Muggleborns. But he is an appalling teacher. I could see the fun little competition as innovative teaching if that were just the first class of the year. But, even if he isn't giving prizes every class, they do seem to consist of him pitting the students against each other and then picking a winner based on personal charm or bloodline or association or "cheekiness." I like Harry to the extent that he dislikes this attitude (not wanting to attend the Slug Club), but I dislike the way that Harry allows Slughorn's favoritism (along with the "help" he's getting from the Prince) to benefit him. In the long term, Slughorn's methods are not helping Harry the potions student (much as they may be helping Harry the Hero of Our Story). He isn't really learning what he's supposed to be learning in sixth year, as Hemione points out. He can follow instructions, but he doesn't know the theory behind them. Montavilla47 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 8 23:18:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:18:51 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, slytherins etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177843 > Prep0strus: > And this is where I disagree. Because I don't believe the only > thing we are invited to hold against him is his reluctance to > fight. I think he completely makes up for that, and even his > previous cowardice, in returning to the castle to fight. Goddlefrood: Before DH came out I'd quite liked Slughorn, still have no real problem with him as it happens. Anyone who once worked at Honeyduke's must be doing something right and can't be too bad (he never poisoned the sweets, anyway). One speculation that hasn't yet been refuted and is still canon consistent. Here it is (originally posted Nov '05): Goddlefrood of the dim and distant: Just a short observation regarding Horace Slughorn. Perhaps as usual I am reading too much into it but I think we met Horace briefly prior to Chapter Four of HBP. My reference is the following quotation from POA (Chapter Ten - The Marauder's Map, p. 146 Bloomsbury paperback edition): - he saw an enormous backside and a shiny bald head buried in a box. (This assistant was sent to get Jelly Slugs) Part of Horace's mysyterious past, or simply did he want to be close to the crystallised pineapple? Goddlefrood of the present: Like you say in your posts it's a little worrying that Horace is about as good a Slytherin as they get. Whatever his prejudices might be I never and still don't see him as bad. I've said all I'm likely to on Slytherins several months ago, in a nutshell I saw a glimmer of hope for some eventual harmony between the houses, but appreciate that others did not. Oh, and there certainly were Death Eaters from other houses and other schools even. Slytherin did supply the bulk of the Death Eaters, however the Death Eaters were never a huge force (numbers wise). That you're a Slytherin and don't become a Death Eater doesn't, naturally, mean you're a sweetheart. The only other point I have to make is that, due to several instances of outright misinformation in statements made by JKR outside the books themselves, whatever is said in interviews and even on her site should not really be relied upon to make out any kind of case. That a case for whatever assertion one cares to make can be made out from the books is something I have little doubt many on this list would agree with. Witness Goyle Snr, superspy, Ma Black as RAB and many more such speculations from the typewriter of this LOON. Goddlefrood, who also likes the name Horace as his brother's late cat had the same moniker (not that this influenced his opinion of Slughorn) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 23:37:26 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:37:26 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177844 Did anyone else find it surprising that Harry learned what happened at Godric's Hollow from Voldemort's pov? It made sense in retrospect since their connection offered the means to see what happened. I remember many discussions about how Harry would learn about the event, whether it would be the memory of a second person with Voldemort, a memory left for Harry from Dumbledore, even time travel. I don't recall suggestions that it would be seen from Voldemort's pov. Anyone get that one right? Here are a few more thoughts about the scene: 1) James not picking up his wand: That he wasn't armed seemed strange to me at first - why, with all the danger for his family, would he not grab his wand when he heard a loud noise such as the door bursting open?!? Like it or not, the explanation appears to be given by Voldemort - James trusted his friends. I ended up liking that explanation, thinking it fit. James reminded me of Harry by not being prepared, by not believing his secret would be betrayed by a friend. Without knowing what was going through his head, my best guess is James assumed whoever entered the house was a friend. 2) Lily barricading the door: This one was a little harder to decipher. At first I thought it was simply meant to be a mother and wife panicking, a young mother at that. Now after a few readings I see more. I think both the Potters are meant to contrast with Voldemort, how little value he places on human reactions and emotions vs. magical skill, and how clear it was that the Potters were humans first and magical beings second. Both responded with their humanity first. Now I read the scene as in-character for both of them, and it fits that Harry is more like them than different. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 01:09:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:09:20 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Did anyone else find it surprising that Harry learned what happened > at Godric's Hollow from Voldemort's pov? Alla: I was surprised :) I was betting on time travel as means Harry would learn about the event. But yeah, it made sense in retrospect for me too. Jen: Here are a few more thoughts about the scene: > > 1) James not picking up his wand: That he wasn't armed seemed > strange to me at first - why, with all the danger for his family, > would he not grab his wand when he heard a loud noise such as the > door bursting open?!? Like it or not, the explanation appears to be > given by Voldemort - James trusted his friends. I ended up liking > that explanation, thinking it fit. James reminded me of Harry by not > being prepared, by not believing his secret would be betrayed by a > friend. Without knowing what was going through his head, my best > guess is James assumed whoever entered the house was a friend. Alla: I thought also that James without a wand was meant to make the scene of his death so much more poignant ( and Lily too). I mean, I was not expecting it, but when instead of James dying when charging another curse at Voldemort, I saw James dying right after playing with his son, I thought it was to empathise the innocence, sort of making a scene as maniac killing civilians, not soldiers battling and one soldier killing another. I loved it. I mean, it is not that I think of James any less of the hero. He fought Voldemort for several years since young age, he is hero in my eyes for sure and Lily too, but I found that scene deeply deeply moving and I loved that she went for portraying James' death that way. Oh, and yeah, agree on trusting his friends part. I can so identify in that with James. Jen: > 2) Lily barricading the door: This one was a little harder to > decipher. At first I thought it was simply meant to be a mother and > wife panicking, a young mother at that. Now after a few readings I > see more. I think both the Potters are meant to contrast with > Voldemort, how little value he places on human reactions and > emotions vs. magical skill, and how clear it was that the Potters > were humans first and magical beings second. Both responded with > their humanity first. Now I read the scene as in-character for both > of them, and it fits that Harry is more like them than different. Alla: Of children and loyalty and fairy tales Voldemort understands nothing. Yes, indeed, I agree again. But I also think that Lily's barricading the door first and then standing in front of Harry was meant to empathicise her courage even more AND that it was not an easy thing for her to do - mother's love or not, she **was** afraid of Voldemort IMO, hence barricading the door. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 01:35:59 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:35:59 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177846 > > Magpie: > > I've said this before, but I just don't get it. Whether or not he's > > a fanatic, how are his "old ideas" any less bigoted? > > Mike: > Why should I think that someone in the Potterverse under the > impression that purebloods would be inheritantly more magical than > Muggleborns is bigoted? Magpie: First, because being "more magical" is the most important thing in this world, second because it's not true and is the basis for Pureblood superiority and three because in this series more magical also means better student, iow, smart. There's no reason for him to believe anything positive or negative about students this way based on their blood. Well, frankly, he ought to stop judging the students on what they are going to give him, period. It's not just a problem with Muggle-borns. Even if he thought they were equal they're disadvantaged in not having any magical relatives for him to suck up to. I mean, this is all obviously coded at least some of the time as being "like racism" and it's not too uncommon for bigots to say that other races are just more violent or less intelligent while saying this doesn't make them less good as people. Slughorn's a teacher. His job is teaching these kids magic. He has different expectations based on their blood--and teachers can do a lot of damage with low expectations. And it's not like Muggle-borns have the background to know he's not right in his judgment. Mike: IMO, he isn't shown as > being bigoted based on blood status. He is shown as believing > that a pure-blood witch or wizard will be more *talented*. Which is > not the same as saying Muggleborns are bad people. Magpie: "Welcome to my class, John. I don't think you're a bad person, but I don't expect you to do as well in my class as the students with better blood--the ones I'm automatically inviting into my special club designed to network them into the positions of power in society because they've got powerful relatives." If I were on the receiving end of that, I think it would feel like bigotry. > > Magpie: > > I can't believe anybody, if faced with a guy saying, "Ah yes, your > > mother was black. Could have knocked me over with a feather, she > > was so bright! Funny how that happens sometimes!" Or: "Your mother > > was very good at math--can you imagine? A girl good at math!" > > Mike: > I wouldn't couch any of the bigotry in these books as racial. Based > on the Nazi imagery that I thought JKR was paralleling, I would call > it ethnic. > > So it was more like, "Your mother was a helluva distance runner. > Never would have guessed she was Jewish." And if Jewish people > weren't historically known for their distance running... does that > make him prejudicial against Jewish people? Yes, but not necessarily > bigoted. Bigoted connotes dislike or disfavor based on the ethnic > condition, imo. I don't read that in Slughorn. (BTW, I have NO IDEA > if Jewish people are or aren't good distance runners, it's just an > example.) Magpie: I don't see how "not good at the thing upon which our entire society is based" isn't disfavor. Especially since haven't people actually looked at the bad effect this kind of attitude has on students? It'd be one thing even if he were the janitor looking around at the students and privately thinking "the Muggle-borns must be doing worse than the Purebloods" but he's teaching them. Is Draco not supposed to be sounding bigoted in his first scene with Harry? Of course, Muggle-borns in canon are basically shown to be part of the same culture and ethnicity. Muggle-borns have no culture of doing magic or not before they come to Hogwarts. Once there we've not seen anything to suggest they have their own culture or any magical talents or interests that are significantly different as students. It would certainly have made sense to have Muggle-borns as a noticible group, but since they're not it seems like Slughorn's talking about blood here. > > Magpie: > > Who cares if it's "old-fashioned?" Not that I'm conceding that it > > is--I'm not. He's still picking out kids for different treatment > > based on their bloodline. > > Mike: > I care, and I disagree. I think people should be judged in context. > If Slughorn's ideas are misshapen by the predominant opinion of a > bygone era that he was brought up to believe, that should be taken > into account. That's the way I read the books, that in the past it > was commonly thought that pure-bloods would be more *talented* > wizards. The real measuring stick is whether Slughorn has changed > with the times. I think he has softened his position with regards to > Muggleborns. He's quite taken with Hermione right off the bat, and > only after does he realizes she is the Muggleborn that Harry spoke of. Magpie: I don't see anything in the actual world-building to say this is a generational thing. Asking me to superimpose my own world's history on it to excuse him seems a bit sloppy. Gryffindor was pro-Muggleborn thousands of years ago. The whole place changes to a society that hunts Muggle-borns pretty quickly in DH. We never hear about any sort of movement on this issue. We've met other older people who didn't all have this problem--not the way we see it being a thing to expect in Slytherins. But regardless, however much he's changed (and since we didn't know him before I don't know how much he did) I wouldn't want him using my 11-year-old Muggle-born to play that out because he'd gotten better. I think Slughorn can have a problem with his attitude even if he doesn't ask every specific student his/her bloodline before he compliments them. He looks for students he thinks will reflect well on him. There are a number of things that can make him think they will. Not all of them are blood related, but some are. Mike: > As for picking out kids based on bloodline, explain Ron. Sluggy's > already drafted his younger sister (based on hexing talent not > blood). What taint does Ron exhibit that precludes him from getting > this supposed "blood" preference? Magpie: So in order for Slughorn to possibly be bigoted to you he has to pick every Pureblood and have nothing but Purebloods in his club? That's not what he does. That's not the way bigotry works in our world either. It just seems bizarre to me to either say "He can't be a bigot--he didn't invite Ron into his club!" or "He can't be a bigot-- he let Hermione and Lily in!" I don't think bigotry's that simple. Though I admit I'm also perhaps primed to see it that way since I've been in so many conversations about racism where people have expressed frustration at arguments that racism doesn't exist where they feel they're on teh receiving end of it. > > Magpie: > > I think the whole idea of Slughorn's (and sometimes Phineas') > > bigotry being "old-fashioned" comes from the sketchy world- > > building. Who says it's old-fashioned in canon? Nobody that we see. > > Mike: > I don't concede that Slughorn is bigoted, not in my view of the term > nor in my impression of Slughorn. If you want to discuss whether > Slughorn's view that pure-blood wizards are more talented is old- > fashioned, that I'll address, and to some degree I already did above. > > As to the rest, yes, I'm sure I'm drawing on real world history to > think the talented pure-blood motif was handed down. I don't think it > an untenable position especially if, as you said, JKR was probably > counting on us to draw that parallel from RL images. Magpie: But apparently not intending us to draw any real life parallels to the guy thinking Muggle-borns aren't as magical (being more or less magical being the most important thing in this universe) being bigotry even though elsewhere it's an insult to suggest Muggle-borns are more like Muggles than Witches. So it wouldn't be bigotry to say that somebody of a certain race is likely to not do well in school because of their race. > > Magpie: > > Err...and that's good? That Harry first bristled at Slughorn > > stating that his mother surprised him by being talented because she > > was a Muggleborn, and then softened up after the guy praised him > > for talent he didn't have, which he chalked up to his blood? > > Mike: > Who said it was good? I just said I had a different initial > impression than Harry, and that Harry changed his impression. Magpie: Did he? I'm not sure that he ever necessarily gave up the idea that Slughorn was obnoxious for the thing about Muggle-borns. Mike: > BTW, which he chalked up to his *Mother's Muggleborn* blood. At what > point do we give Slughorn credit for seeing past his prejudices > towards Muggleborns to realize that they are just as good? I've been > given enough examples to see that Slughorn doesn't act on those > prejudices, at least not any more. And I call them prejudices, not > bigotry. Magpie: I think we give him credit when he actually does it and starts treating kids in his class as students he's there to help learn-- which doesn't seem to be something he'll be doing. We all know he's singled out Lily as one of those exceptional Muggle-borns who rose above her natural inadequacies. Seeing a "good Muggle-born" is not seeing past your bigotry and seeing that they're "just as good." And I think Slughorn acts on his prejudices every day. Every time he steps into a class with the attitude of "well, the Muggle-borns naturally have less potential" I think he has an effect on the students. He can still recognize an exceptional Muggle-born when he sees one, but his general attitude still seems just as important to me. It doesn't give him a get out of bigotry free card any more than Snape's being half-Muggle makes him immune to being a bigot. Maybe Slughorn has changed his attitudes--I've no evidence that he has since I didn't know him in the past. He's certainly better than Tom Riddle. But if this is the best Slytherin has to offer, I still don't see anything admirable here. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 02:29:06 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:29:06 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, slytherins etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177847 > Irene: > > > > It's not that I love him that much, it's just seems to me that he > > is as good as Slytherins can get, and if the author positions > > even him as a bad character, then what hope for the rest of them? Mike: I don't really "love" Sluggy either. I like him as a character, in the way Katie said she liked him, I suppose. He is cartoonish right up until those final scenes in both HBP and DH. I have no doubt I would find him annoying in real life, so I guess it's a good thing I'm not a wizard having to spend time in his company. Then again, I think I'd find Harry annoying in real life too. But I care about Harry as a character and like Slughorn as a character. Snape... not so much, though I did find him an interesting character. > Prep0strus: > > What I dislike about him is not his lack of Gryffindor qualities, > but the presence of Slytherin qualities. His selfishness, his > greed. His self image is what matters to him. His club is a way > for him to take anyone who he thinks can do anything for him and > suck up to them. Mike: Because the Flitwick Flyers, the Sprout Farmers, and Minerva's Minnions were so much better clubs to be in. Oh wait, those other HoH's don't have clubs. So Slughorn spends personal time trying to help the advancement of a select few students. And Sluggy's club is a two-way street, because he does bring his present club members to the attention of his former members, or puts in a good word to the right ear. But that's bad because he doesn't include every student?! As Irene asked, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with kick starting the career of a perceived high flyer? Because he didn't think much of Arthur Weasley? It seems Molly didn't think much of Arthur for much of the series! > Prep0strus: > It's about what they, or people they know, can do for Slughorn. > > It's his own little universe, and if you don't fit in, you're out. Mike: So we should condemn Slughorn for giving a select few *extra* attention because he wants to? Not everybody can change the course of the entire WW by force of their actions, like Harry. The vast majority exist in their own little universe. And Sluggy has as much right as any of them to have an extra-curricular group of people that he wishes to help and in turn be helped by. The *only* person I'm aware of that McGonnagall took an interest in, re career advancement, was Harry and his quest for Aurorship. What did she do for him? What did she do for Ron? Neville? Seamus, Dean, Parvati, etc.? So why should I look down on Slughorn for helping a select few because he expects to receive something in return, sometimes nothing more than self-satisfaction? It seems to be a helluva lot more than the other teachers care to do. BTW, with regards to Slughorn's teaching style; we haven't been shown *any* other teacher style. They all seem to do the same thing. At least Sluggy had something a little different for his first class. Where were the other teachers' innovative styles? (Except for Firenze. Firenze's classes are just cool) ;) > Prep0strus: > Social cliques are hard enough when they are orchestrated by the > kids themselves - a professor should not be encouraging that, > especially not for his own benefit. Mike: The social cliques in this school seem to be based almost entirely upon House affiliation. The Slug Club seems to cut across those boundaries. And I think it's for mutual benefit. > Prep0strus: > Who wants to be the kid that isn't passed the candy? > Who isn't given the invitation? Who is obviously not > deemed worthy of the cool kids club? Mike: Get rid of Quidditch then, not everyone gets to participate. In fact, get rid of the House system, not everyone gets to be in Gryffindor. Hell, get rid of Hogwarts, we can't have a school for a select few kids in the British Isles just because they have a talent that kids like Petunia don't. I don't believe in universal access to private, social groups. Especially when that social group is not based on anything bigoted. And I don't see Slughorn picking his club members for bigoted reasons. > Prep0strus: > It is Slytherin, without the evil - no murder, no genocide. > Just soft bigotry, exclusion, and slimy back-door ambition. > Slughorn is kind of a delicious character, but if he's as good > as Slytherin can get, then Slytherin is certainly the gutter. Mike: And this is the big disagreement. Because, as stated above, Slughorn includes all Houses, Muggleborns and pure-bloods, boys and girls. Which group is he excluding? Where is the bigotry? I don't have to want to spend personal time with a character to like that character. I like Hermione, but I would no doubt find her as annoying as Ron found her in PS/SS. More so in the later books, unlike Ron. ;) Slughorn may have his prejudices, but it seems we can find prejudices or soft bigotry at a minimum in almost every character in the Potterverse. So Slughorn doesn't stand out on that account. I think Slughorn is that "good Slytherin", not that I care whether there is a "good Slytherin" or not. It doesn't change my perception of Slytherin House. OTOH, I also believe that with the last of the Slytherin heirs cashed out, the House has the chance to move up in the world. But you and Magpie are right, it didn't happen in this series. Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 05:04:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:04:49 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177848 > Magpie: > > > I mean, this is all obviously coded at least some of the time as > being "like racism" and it's not too uncommon for bigots to say > that other races are just more violent or less intelligent while > saying this doesn't make them less good as people. Mike: I said earlier that I don't agree with your assessment as code for racism. Ethnicity as in the way Nazis treated the Jews, that seems to be the coding you're speaking of, to me. > Magpie: > Slughorn's a teacher. His job is teaching these kids magic. He > has different expectations based on their blood--and teachers can > do a lot of damage with low expectations. Mike: Where's the canon that Slughorn treats Muggleborn students different than his other students? IIRC, Slughorn is impressed with Hermione before he realizes she is the Muggleborn top-of-the-class. From the conversation in HBP Ch 4, that seems to have been the case with Lily, too. Slughorn seems to have taken the measure of the student *before* he has any knowledge of their blood status. Did we see Slughorn ask or find out the blood status of any other students? Not that I recall. > Magpie: > "Welcome to my class, John. I don't think you're a bad person, but > I don't expect you to do as well in my class as the students with > better blood--the ones I'm automatically inviting into my special > club designed to network them into the positions of power in > society because they've got powerful relatives." Mike: You read that type of greeting where? Or you have imagined that's what Slughorn is *thinking*? But still, this is prejudice, not bigotry, in my reading of the terms. You saw Slughorn inviting only white, male pure-bloods into the Slugclub? Only Slytherins? > Magpie: > I don't see how "not good at the thing upon which our entire > society is based" isn't disfavor. Especially since haven't people > actually looked at the bad effect this kind of attitude has on > students? Mike: It's only disfavor if Slughorn acts upon it. In what part of either book have you found Slughorn acting upon his prejudicial inclinations? Because contrary to acting upon his prejudice, I saw him invite one Muggleborn into his Slug Club and covet another for her talents, wishing she were in his House. Which Muggleborn did you see him exclude for his/her blood status? Which Muggleborn did you see him treat "disfavorably" because of their blood status? > Magpie: > I don't see anything in the actual world-building to say this is a > generational thing. Asking me to superimpose my own world's history > on it to excuse him seems a bit sloppy. Mike: But you are willing to superimpose our world's racism on this topic. I'm suppose to see those parallels, while you deny the generational parallels. Just because Godric Gryffindor championed Muggle and Muggleborn rights (BTW, where does this come from? I don't remember reading this in the books) doesn't mean they thought pure-bloods weren't more talented. What makes a wizard "powerfully magical"? Was pure-blood=more magical all snobbery/bigotry or was there a trace of truth to it, or a perceived belief? We don't know either of these. It's all conjecture when trying to discern the history of these beliefs. > Magpie: > I think Slughorn can have a problem with his attitude even if he > doesn't ask every specific student his/her bloodline before he > compliments them. He looks for students he thinks will reflect well > on him. There are a number of things that can make him think they > will. Not all of them are blood related, but some are. Mike: Not me. > Magpie: > So in order for Slughorn to possibly be bigoted to you he has to > pick every Pureblood and have nothing but Purebloods in his club? Mike: No, in order for him to be bigoted he needs to favor pure-bloods over Muggleborns. You were the one that said Slughorn picked kids for bloodline. So why doesn't he pick the pure-blood Ron over the Muggleborn Hermione? Unless, of course that isn't the criteria Slughorn uses for picking members of his club. > Magpie: > That's not what he does. That's not the way bigotry works in our > world either. It just seems bizarre to me to either say "He can't > be a bigot--he didn't invite Ron into his club!" or "He can't be a > bigot--he let Hermione and Lily in!" I don't think bigotry's that > simple. Mike: I'm obviously not primed to see bigotry as easily as you do. And I do see prejudice in Slughorn's attitude. I don't find it plausible that Slughorn is both a bigot against Muggleborns and at the same time invites Muggleborns into his club. This is his club, something he does above and beyond his duties as a teacher, something noone has a right to tell him what the compositional makeup must be. And still, he selects students he's bigoted towards? The plausibility runs out for me. > Magpie: > But apparently not intending us to draw any real life parallels to > the guy thinking Muggle-borns aren't as magical (being more or less > magical being the most important thing in this universe) being > bigotry even though elsewhere it's an insult to suggest Muggle- > borns are more like Muggles than Witches. So it wouldn't be bigotry > to say that somebody of a certain race is likely to not do well in > school because of their race. Mike: Which race do you have in mind? You keep wanting to bring in race to this issue, and yet I see no racial problems in the Potterverse. We have never been given any distinctions in abilities based on race, be they caucasian, black, Asian, Middle Eastern, aboriginal, or any other racial classifications you would choose. There seems to be most all races in Hogwarts, yet very little is said about race and next to nothing depends on race. > Magpie: > I think we give him credit when he actually does it and starts > treating kids in his class as students he's there to help learn-- > which doesn't seem to be something he'll be doing. We all know he's > singled out Lily as one of those exceptional Muggle-borns who rose > above her natural inadequacies. Mike: Canon, please. Which kid or kids did he treat differently because of their blood status? Or I should say treated poorly, because he seems to have treated Lily better *despite* her blood status. > Magpie: > Seeing a "good Muggle-born" is not seeing past your bigotry and > seeing that they're "just as good." And I think Slughorn acts on > his prejudices every day. Every time he steps into a class with the > attitude of "well, the Muggle-borns naturally have less potential" Mike: Seeing past his prejudice, not acting bigoted is how I've characterized Slughorn's attitude. And since I don't think Slughorn acts on his prejudice, we are at an impasse. I would still like some canon example of Slughorn "acting on his prejudices". I do not think I am asking for proof of a negative here. > Magpie: > > Maybe Slughorn has changed his attitudes--I've no evidence that he > has since I didn't know him in the past. He's certainly better than > Tom Riddle. But if this is the best Slytherin has to offer, I still > don't see anything admirable here. Mike: As I said in my response to Adam, I neither care to find an admirable (likeable) Slytherin, nor was I looking for one in the first place. Slytherin was never a House of admirable characters for me. Neither was finding a "good Slytherin" a priority of mine, though I would classify Slughorn as one, prejudices and all. If you see Slughorn has bigoted to the end, I doubt you would have devined any change from his previous attitudes. I don't see him as bigoted, but his present day demeanor and language along with his attitude towards Muggleborns with talent in the present bespeaks of a change from his previous attitudes to me. Mike From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 9 05:27:40 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:27:40 -0000 Subject: Slughorn. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177849 Well I like Slughorn.I probably like him because if I were somehow magically inserted into the Potter saga he is the character I would most closely resemble. I don't want to rule the world, and I don't want to be the hero, I just want to have a happy comfortable life. And if I have some powerful friends willing to help me out if I get into a jam that would be just great. I know Slughorn has his faults but, well, I know this is hard to believe but, the fact is, I have a few faults myself. Ok I've said it. It feels good to get this astonishing revelation off my chest! And although I am sure Slughorn was terrified and seriously thought about running away the fact is he did NOT run away. Slughorn overcame his fear and dueled with Voldemort personally in the Battle of Hogwarts! If that isn't enough to redeem a character I don't know what on Earth could. If you were in similar circumstances are any of you certain you would have done better than Slughorn, or even done as well? I think Slughorn is the perfect example of a good Slytherin. True he doesn't act exactly as a Gryffindor would, but that's why he's in Slytherin; however as book 7 proves when things become REALLY serious you would not be foolish to trust Slughorn. Eggplant From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 9 12:38:47 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:38:47 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > 1) James not picking up his wand: That he wasn't armed seemed > strange to me at first - why, with all the danger for his family, > would he not grab his wand when he heard a loud noise such as the > door bursting open?!? Like it or not, the explanation appears to be > given by Voldemort - James trusted his friends. I ended up liking > that explanation, thinking it fit. James reminded me of Harry by not > being prepared, by not believing his secret would be betrayed by a > friend. Without knowing what was going through his head, my best > guess is James assumed whoever entered the house was a friend. Marianne: I thought that was weird for another reason entirely. It sticks in my mind that Voldemort told Harry at some point in the graveyard scene in GoF that James fought bravely before he was killed. I skimmed the scene briefly just now and all I found was Vmort saying that James died "straight-backed and proud." Now, of course, anything an Evil Overlord says must be taken with a grain of salt - it's not like he'd be bound to tell the truth. However, I still have the distinct impression from earlier books that James actually fought Voldemort, where here I got the impression all he had time to do was shout a warning to Lily and then he was killed. I don't have a problem with the explanation that James assumed it would be someone he trusted on the other side of the door. But, this seemed somehow to lessen James's death, in the sense that now it's revealed he didn't really have time or was armed sufficiently to put up a fight. Thus, once Vmort disposes of him like swatting a fly, then we get to the really important sacrifice, which is the mother's sacrifice for her child. Jen: > 2) Lily barricading the door: This one was a little harder to > decipher. At first I thought it was simply meant to be a mother and > wife panicking, a young mother at that. Now after a few readings I > see more. I think both the Potters are meant to contrast with > Voldemort, how little value he places on human reactions and > emotions vs. magical skill, and how clear it was that the Potters > were humans first and magical beings second. Both responded with > their humanity first. Now I read the scene as in-character for both > of them, and it fits that Harry is more like them than different. Marianne: I confess I haven't reread any Potter book after OoP, so I do not have the level of detail in my head that most posters here have. I think Jen's explanation makes sense in what we know of Voldemort and Lily. It doesn't completely work for me because I think James has remained something of a cipher. His one consistent trait seems to be loyalty to and trust in his friends, which fits with Jen's thoughts. But, we never see him doing anything admirable, we hear about his good points in only a general manner and we hear it second-hand from people like McGonagall, Moody and Dumbledore, whose word we are supposed to trust. Lily's death and magical protection of Harry come up repeatedly throughtout the series, but James is basically the guard dog who gets fed the poisoned meat. Marianne From irenem316 at comcast.net Tue Oct 9 13:27:58 2007 From: irenem316 at comcast.net (irenematt02176) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:27:58 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" > wrote: > > > > Did anyone else find it surprising that Harry learned what > happened > > at Godric's Hollow from Voldemort's pov? > > Alla: > > I was surprised :) I was betting on time travel as means Harry would > learn about the event. But yeah, it made sense in retrospect for me > too. Irene: Harry learing about the events at Godric's Hollow through Voldy-cam was a method that never occurred to me - possibly because it was being blocked by LV in HBP, but I think it makes perfect sense. LV is losing control and getting more and more desperate to get rid of Harry, which is why Harry has access to his mind again. (It just occurred to me that the channel opened again just after Harry's wand beat LV's borrowed wand during the Privet Drive escape). To have missed him yet again, to have been so close, and to be back at the site of his 'fall' at Harry's hands 16 years previous would certainly cause LV's 'worst memory' to come flooding back into his mind. And Harry would see it since LV was totally out of control, not to mention furious, at that moment. Brilliant! Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 9 14:03:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:03:26 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177852 Jen: . I think both the Potters are meant to contrast with > Voldemort, how little value he places on human reactions and > emotions vs. magical skill, and how clear it was that the Potters > were humans first and magical beings second. Both responded with > their humanity first. Now I read the scene as in-character for both > of them, and it fits that Harry is more like them than different. > Pippin: This observation might throw some light on why JKR made a big mystery out of J &L's occupations. Maybe she knew we'd be imagining big important careers for them (well, I did) and she wanted to show us that their humanity was more important. That could be why there's no career info in the epilogue either. But that brings up something else. Despite defying Voldemort three times, all we really know that the Potters and Longbottoms did for the Order was get their picture taken. That makes the actions by Snape and Regulus, which are described in detail, stand out a lot more. If the Gryffindors of the Marauder era were to be judged by the standards that some are applying to the Slytherins of the Trio's time, we'd have to ask where the good Gryffindors are. And that might be the point. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 14:28:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:28:20 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177853 > > Magpie: > > Slughorn's a teacher. His job is teaching these kids magic. He > > has different expectations based on their blood--and teachers can > > do a lot of damage with low expectations. > > Mike: > Where's the canon that Slughorn treats Muggleborn students different > than his other students? IIRC, Slughorn is impressed with Hermione > before he realizes she is the Muggleborn top-of-the-class. From the > conversation in HBP Ch 4, that seems to have been the case with Lily, > too. Slughorn seems to have taken the measure of the student *before* > he has any knowledge of their blood status. Did we see Slughorn ask > or find out the blood status of any other students? Not that I recall. Magpie: The canon is Slughorn inviting kids with good family connections etc. to his compartment to invite them into his club before school even starts, and even adding to that earlier by stating that he associates Muggle-borns with being less magical. Sure if you're an exceptional Muggle-born you can get his attention. Bully for him. If you're a regular Muggle-born you lack the advantage of a regular kid with magical relatives, and he's assuming you have less potential than the non-Muggle-born. And for canon that he treats students differently, I don't see how that could be any more clear than scenes where Slughorn is comically different in the way he treats any kid he thinks can do something for him and kids who can't. JKR even has him invite a kid to his cabin and then when it turns out he's not in contact with his cool relative he passes him over for cake. Ethnicity or whatever you want to call Muggle-borns is not always the deciding factor in whether he's going to ignore you or not, but it certainly can be one of them. It is one by default. And this is why I think these books are bizarre, because JKR puts bigotry as her central evil, and yet bigotry seems defined as wanting to kill people who are of a different ethnicity. What a petty end to a 7 book series for me to be discussing whether the attitude of somebody like Slughorn is bad or not. > > Magpie: > > "Welcome to my class, John. I don't think you're a bad person, but > > I don't expect you to do as well in my class as the students with > > better blood--the ones I'm automatically inviting into my special > > club designed to network them into the positions of power in > > society because they've got powerful relatives." > > Mike: > You read that type of greeting where? Or you have imagined that's > what Slughorn is *thinking*? But still, this is prejudice, not > bigotry, in my reading of the terms. > > You saw Slughorn inviting only white, male pure-bloods into the > Slugclub? Only Slytherins? Magpie: And as I've explained a number of times, not inviting only white, male pure-bloods into the Slug Club does not, to me, indicate that the guy can't be bigoted. It seems you have to work damn hard in this universe to be considered a bigot. Saying you have [insert ethnic group] friends actually is proof you're not one in this universe, apparently. > > Magpie: > > I don't see how "not good at the thing upon which our entire > > society is based" isn't disfavor. Especially since haven't people > > actually looked at the bad effect this kind of attitude has on > > students? > > Mike: > It's only disfavor if Slughorn acts upon it. In what part of either > book have you found Slughorn acting upon his prejudicial > inclinations? Because contrary to acting upon his prejudice, I saw > him invite one Muggleborn into his Slug Club and covet another for > her talents, wishing she were in his House. Which Muggleborn did you > see him exclude for his/her blood status? Which Muggleborn did you > see him treat "disfavorably" because of their blood status? Magpie: Being from a good Wizarding family is an advantage to Slughorn. Slughorn acts on that advantage by inviting kids from good families into his Club and treating them markedly differently in class. Does this mean that only Muggle-borns are excluded? No, so is Ron excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with blood. And Hermione, by bringing something special to the table, is included. If you're ordinary with good connections, you're in. If you're ordinary and Muggle-born, you're not. As to acting on his prejudice, the guy considers Muggle-born's natural inferiority so much a fact it's one of the first things he says in canon. This indicates to me the character judges on blood-- that's why he can list all the Muggle-borns in his Club and files them in his mind as such. Given the almost OTT demonstrations I'm given that this guy treats people differently based on the advantages he sees in them, I find it hard to imagine that his attitude doesn't come through in his teachings of the class. One of Slughorn's main traits is that he's not very good at hiding how much he thinks somebody's worth. If he assumes a kid's not got as much natural talent as another one because she's Muggle-born, why wouldn't he treat her that way? You can hardly judge by his treatment of Hermione, who by the time he meets her is a sixth year and a character for whom one of the first character traits we got from her was that she put herself forward and showed off in class. It's the middle of the road Muggle-borns and the ones who struggle who don't deserve to be saddled with Slughorn as a teacher. > > Magpie: > > I don't see anything in the actual world-building to say this is a > > generational thing. Asking me to superimpose my own world's history > > on it to excuse him seems a bit sloppy. > > Mike: > But you are willing to superimpose our world's racism on this topic. > I'm suppose to see those parallels, while you deny the generational > parallels. Just because Godric Gryffindor championed Muggle and > Muggleborn rights (BTW, where does this come from? I don't remember > reading this in the books) doesn't mean they thought pure-bloods > weren't more talented. Magpie: Well, yes. I said it's sloppy, but I'm stuck with it since I've got no actual world-building to use instead. So it's possible that when it comes to Slughorn he's supposed to be indicative of a past attitude. If I didn't superimpose our world's racism on the books half the time they'd lose a lot of their meaning--DH isn't half as sinister if you don't connect registering Muggle-borns to registering done by Nazis. So maybe that is the point with Slughorn, but I don't think it's unfair of me to not be sure, given that if you're looking for "who has these attitudes in this story?" Slughorn's attitude links him more to Slytherins (we see some of them espouse the attitude that Muggle-borns shouldn't be as good students as Pure-bloods) more than other old people (who have not been as consistently connected to the idea). I'm still not saying you're wrong about Slughorn's attitude being linked to something that was supposed to be more acceptable in the past, but I'm understanding it for the same reason I understand a lot of other stuff--by picking up on cues that hint of my own world and filling in the gaps. That's certainly how I explain why Slughorn's Slughorn in Tom Riddle's day is iirc described as all male. Of course, an attitude being considered acceptable in the past doesn't mean it was ever particularly acceptable. Mike: What makes a wizard "powerfully magical"? Was > pure-blood=more magical all snobbery/bigotry or was there a trace of > truth to it, or a perceived belief? We don't know either of these. > It's all conjecture when trying to discern the history of these > beliefs. Magpie: Well, we're told by some or our good guy characters that it's all snobbery/bigotry with no truth to it, but they could be wrong, I guess. Though it seems to be bizarre that at the end of the series we'd be wanting to argue that in fact the belief at the core of Voldemort's philosophy was correct. They quite possibly might be superior, and they can think it, but they just shouldn't express it. (I admit I have a hard time seeing any Wizards managing that.) > > Magpie: > > So in order for Slughorn to possibly be bigoted to you he has to > > pick every Pureblood and have nothing but Purebloods in his club? > > Mike: > No, in order for him to be bigoted he needs to favor pure-bloods over > Muggleborns. You were the one that said Slughorn picked kids for > bloodline. So why doesn't he pick the pure-blood Ron over the > Muggleborn Hermione? Unless, of course that isn't the criteria > Slughorn uses for picking members of his club. Magpie: Slughorn's criteria for picking people for his club is that he thinks you're going to be rich and famous. He favors anybody with more chance of being that. It's "funny" how it "sometimes works out" that the rich and famous are Muggle-borns, because by default the Pure-bloods ought to be more magical. Not only Muggle-borns suffer from Slughorn's attitude, but being one will probably make it more likely you're one of the nobodies. > > Magpie: > > That's not what he does. That's not the way bigotry works in our > > world either. It just seems bizarre to me to either say "He can't > > be a bigot--he didn't invite Ron into his club!" or "He can't be a > > bigot--he let Hermione and Lily in!" I don't think bigotry's that > > simple. > > Mike: > I'm obviously not primed to see bigotry as easily as you do. And I do > see prejudice in Slughorn's attitude. I don't find it plausible that > Slughorn is both a bigot against Muggleborns and at the same time > invites Muggleborns into his club. This is his club, something he > does above and beyond his duties as a teacher, something noone has a > right to tell him what the compositional makeup must be. And still, > he selects students he's bigoted towards? The plausibility runs out > for me. Magpie: Yeah, that seems to basically be it. I couldn't agree more strongly that this is the central issue. I not only think it's plausible but logical that Slughorn can promote Muggle-borns for his own advantage while being a bigot. Yes, he can select students he's bigoted towards. There is nothing unusual in that whatsoever. I also would not just say the club is something he does "above and beyond" his duties as a teacher. His club to me seems like something that interferes fundamentally with his duties as a teacher. -m From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 14:37:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:37:57 -0000 Subject: What's Wrong With Exclusion? (Re: Slughorn, slytherins etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > Because the Flitwick Flyers, the Sprout Farmers, and Minerva's > Minnions were so much better clubs to be in. Oh wait, those other > HoH's don't have clubs. So Slughorn spends personal time trying to > help the advancement of a select few students. Montavilla47: Those other teachers don't have clubs that we *know* about. But then, we don't know much about how the other Houses work, and we know next to nothing about extra-curricular activities at Hogwarts because Harry isn't interested in them. > Mike: > And Sluggy's club is a two-way street, because he does bring his > present club members to the attention of his former members, or puts > in a good word to the right ear. But that's bad because he doesn't > include every student?! > > As Irene asked, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with kick > starting the career of a perceived high flyer? Because he didn't > think much of Arthur Weasley? It seems Molly didn't think much of > Arthur for much of the series! Montavilla47: I think you (and Irene) make a good point here. What is wrong with helping talented students find their niches in the Wizarding World? In principle, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. In fact, I would think that it is a sign of a good teacher to not simply present information to a student (or stuff it into his stubborn little head), but to help that student find his or her path. So what is wrong with Slughorn's Slug Club? Should people *not* associate with others that they have things in common with? Should such clubs be *required* to let in the lesser Weasleys or be banned altogether? The problem I have with the Slug Club is that I see it as an obvious model of the kind of social club that underpins and perpetuates bigotry. In a certain sense it is helpful--and one of the better ways to facilitate social change. I do like Slughorn for extending his favoritism to people like Lily and Ginny. They are (or were) both talented witches who benefited from his networks. But JKR takes pains to show us the dark side of Slughorn's methods. The students who don't impress him are essentially invisible to him. Unimpressed with Ron, he can't be bothered to learn the boy's name. Discovering that Belby isn't well-connected enough, disrespects the boy obviously enough that Harry notices. He cultivates the talented, but not so much because he values talent, but because he values influence. He's not pushing social change, he's simply canny enough to see that change is constant and takes advantage of it by providing small favors that seem large to people who are moving up. And, frankly, the way he goes for pretty, cheeky girls creeps me out. Montavilla47 From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 9 14:51:08 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:51:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) Message-ID: <976883.71583.qm@web86202.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177855 Magpie: And this is why I think these books are bizarre, because JKR puts bigotry as her central evil, and yet bigotry seems defined as wanting to kill people who are of a different ethnicity. What a petty end to a 7 book series for me to be discussing whether the attitude of somebody like Slughorn is bad or not. Irene: I agree with you completely, it is very bizarre. JRK made magic to be genetically inherited even down to its different aspects (I mean, good characters rave how Harry has got his flying abilities from his father and what's not from his mother). The worst thing was mentioning in some interview that muggleborns just had a witch or a wizard in the family tree. So it's like the books are built on aunt Marge's philosophy, and at the same time they hate aunt Marge. Wizards are not familiar with genetics, their scientific thinking seems very medieval to me. No later than 17th century muggle level, IMO. They have no idea how exactly the magic is passed, or not. They don't understand either Squibs or Muggleborns. But they have noticed that particular magical talents run in the families. So, it seems like perfect common sense to assume that, generally speaking, if a child gets his magic from both parents, instead of just one (or even from nowhere), his own magic would be stronger. Seems to me like we are blaming Slughorn for not knowing about dominant and recessive genes. Going back to your examples, I just can't see the equivalence between what he says and the real world "You are so clever for a black person" bigotry. His surprise is akin to a surprise of two short parents producing a 2.15m tall NBA player. Sure, can happen, but more surprising than if both parents were tall. To reiterate - yes, it's very petty that we had 7 books, some of them excessively huge, and yet the message is so muddled that we have to sit here and split these hairs. I don't normally require my literature to have messages, I even prefer it not to, but JKR very obviously wanted to say something about bigotry and prejudice. It did not work out very well, IMO. Irene From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 15:14:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:14:35 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177856 Magpie: If you're a regular Muggle-born you lack the advantage of a regular kid with magical relatives, and he's assuming you have less potential than the non-Muggle-born. And for canon that he treats students differently, I don't see how that could be any more clear than scenes where Slughorn is comically different in the way he treats any kid he thinks can do something for him and kids who can't. JKR even has him invite a kid to his cabin and then when it turns out he's not in contact with his cool relative he passes him over for cake. Alla: But where is the canon that he treats differently the kids who can or cannot do anything for him depending on whether those kids are purebloods or muggleborns? Not thinks about it, but acts on it as Mike said. Sure, connections ARE criteria by which he selects his club members, it is clear to me in canon. I would **prefer** that he would have selected only on talent, no question about it, but to me the bottom line is that he will select you if you only have talent and no connections, and I like that. He has no problem giving Draco Malfoy a door, pureblood with connections and all that. > Magpie: > Yeah, that seems to basically be it. I couldn't agree more strongly > that this is the central issue. I not only think it's plausible but > logical that Slughorn can promote Muggle-borns for his own advantage > while being a bigot. Yes, he can select students he's bigoted > towards. There is nothing unusual in that whatsoever. I also would > not just say the club is something he does "above and beyond" his > duties as a teacher. His club to me seems like something that > interferes fundamentally with his duties as a teacher. Alla: So, what IS bigoted in his attitude towards Muggleborns if he can select them as you seem to agree? His thoughts? Okay, I really could care less about what he thinks as long as he does not act on it and I really do not see him do. To go back to Snape for a second, if Snape kept his hatred of Harry and Neville to THOUGHTS and neither Harry nor Neville knew anything about it, I could care less about his hatred as well. IMO of course. I mean, not that I would prefer Slugghorn or Snape NOT to think those thoughts, but as long as they do not act upon them, I do not care. Again, of course he takes students with connections in his club, not something I would do, but I think he has a right to do so, I do not see how he somehow implements his prejudice against Muggleborns in action, I see him implementing preference for people with connections/ and OR talent. IMO of course. And of course by the end of the book I think it is fair enough speculation that Slugghorn prejudices may have ceased to exist too. Montavilla47: I do like Slughorn for extending his favoritism to people like Lily and Ginny. They are (or were) both talented witches who benefited from his networks. Alla : He does pick the talent, no? Hermione too. Montavilla47: But JKR takes pains to show us the dark side of Slughorn's methods. The students who don't impress him are essentially invisible to him. Unimpressed with Ron, he can't be bothered to learn the boy's name. Discovering that Belby isn't well-connected enough, disrespects the boy obviously enough that Harry notices. Just do not see that he disrespects muggleborns in actions. Alla: Absolutely. Montavilla47: He cultivates the talented, but not so much because he values talent, but because he values influence. He's not pushing social change, he's simply canny enough to see that change is constant and takes advantage of it by providing small favors that seem large to people who are moving up. Alla: And that I do not care ? WHY he cultivates the talent. To me it is enough that he **cultivates** the talent. If he gets something for himself as well, I say more power to him. I think that his talented students also get a lot out of it and I like it. JMO, Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 15:24:03 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:24:03 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177857 > Prep0strus: > I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this point, > especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is not > perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good. It sounds like > many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition, > arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own means. > But, his means are for GOOD. Now, well meaning intentions don't mean > you can't still do evil - one could even argue that his intentions > with Grindelwald had some amount of altruistic intent, at least in his > own mind. but towards the end of his life, Dumbledore was devoted to > defeating Voldemort - yes, he was willing to sacrifice other people > for that cause. But he was also willing to sacrifice himself. He > didn't trust other's judgment as much as his own, but how many people > do? He was the most powerful, the one who had defeated a previous evil > dark lord... lizzyben: Oh, you've got me started on my favorite subject - Dumbledore. What a magnificent megalomaniac he is! In any other story, he would be the villian. Here, he's the leader of the "good side", and I accept that. But wow, what a leader. Yes, he's working for good, but I'm not a fan of "ends justify the means" in general & IMO it doesn't excuse many of the things DD does. First off, he displays immense callousness in how he uses his supporters. He risked the entire Order w/the "Seven Potters" plan. And he told Snape to "play his part to the full" in the chase - meaning, pick off a few Redshirts. He imprisoned Sirius to get him out of the way, kept the Invisibility Cloak when the Potters were in danger. He simply didn't care about their welfare, but more about their use to him. IMO. And you've zeroed in on a key fact - Dumbledore was the "most powerful" because he defeated dark lords. Dark Lords give Dumbledore power. DD wants power, therefore, in a sense, he needs a dark lord. It's a symbiotic relationship. Without a dark lord, DD is just an old headmaster - but with one, he is a hero, a powerful man, a great leader, adored & admired by the entire wizarding world. Dark Lords give DD a meaning & purpose, unlimited power, and *minions* - idealistic followers devoted & loyal to him. They get him *pawns*, and someone who loves power loves having people to use as pawns. I don't think it's a coincidence that DD had a hand in creating *both* of the Dark Lords over the past hundred years. They are Frankenstein's Monster. prepostrus: > And yet, over and over we have to see this effusive praising of Snape. > Just as obsessed with secrecy, just as arrogant, no braver. Why in > the world would Snape be a hero and Dumbledore not? > > People seem truly angry with Dumbledore's character, and make him out > to be 2nd to Voldemort in evil, and I just don't get it. Is it > because we were trained to believe he was perfect, and he wasn't? Is > it the reverse effect? People love to love a guy like Snape, who > seems bad, but is good, but if someone seems good, and isn't perfect, > they have to be castigated? lizzyben: You seem to be phrasing it as one or the other - like people will hate flawed DD & love faultless Snape. I don't see it that way at all. They're both profoundly flawed & both horrible people in their own way. But I'll take Snape's petty meaness over DD's Machievellian manipulations any day. Snape acts like a mean & nasty person, and actually IS mean & nasty person. I appreciate that level of honesty. DD, on the other hand, acts like a kindly, benevolent person, but is actually an egotistical power-hungry monster - and that just creeps me out. Snape's flaws seem more human, in the end. DD's flaws are those of thinking that he is a god. Prep0strus: > If there are two flawed heroes, both who do things wrong, but try to > do the right thing... I'm still going to the like the one who is kind > to children and who makes an attempt to inspire and show love. Not > the one who's nasty and bitter and takes it out on the world. > > ~Prep0strus(Adam) lizzyben: Oh, DD is *kind* to children, he just doesn't *care* about children. Remember, in SS, he lured LV to Hogwarts as part of his brilliant plan. He abandoned Hogwarts when the Basilik started attacking students - though he was sure to send the Hat to his protege when the child took on the monster on his own. He let Draco roam Hogwarts, even after two students almost died from murder attempts. Always to further "the plan." IMO, DD doesn't truly care about protecting students or caring for them. He was very kind to Harry, because he needed to earn Harry's undying (or dying) loyalty in order to assure that he would follow the plan. Plus, having the loyalty of the famous "Boy Who Lived" vastly increased DD's influence on the WW. Every agency wants Harry's allegience - but DD's got it. And DD's record as a caretaker? Not so good. All the people he is supposed to care for end up dead - Ariana, the Potters, Harry, Sirius etc. So why is he Headmaster? IMO, because he knows that old proverb -"the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." As Headmaster, he plays a large role in shaping children's views & he has a large responsibility in how they turn out. Dumbledore pits Gryffindors & Slytherins against each other in the first year, favoring Gryfs, & alienating & isolating Slyths. He treats Gryfs as beloved heros, and Slyths as evil unworthy children. This guarantees two things - a supply of Slyths to turn evil/Dark Wizards, and a supply of Gryfs to love & obey him. In his role as Headmaster for the past 50 years, DD has basically helped shape the dystopic dysfunctional society we see. It is split, violent, full of hatred - but totally idolizes Dumbledore. The ministry may fall, but DD's cult of personality is secure. Other people have gone into the nonsensical plan of DH, so I won't repeat that. Mostly, for me, it's the way DD talks to people that makes him so delightfully creepy. He seems incapable of having an actual conversation w/someone w/o attempting to manipulate them, flatter them, put them down, increase control or exercise power. And sometimes he'll say things in passing that reveal a truly frightening worldview - like when he says that Merope died during childbirth because she wasn't "courageous" & didn't love her baby enough. Or when he's just in total awe of Harry because he can't understand how someone could simply be uninterested in power. I think it'll get even more appalling as people go back through the novels. DD talks about "love" the way other people talk about God - like some mystical powerful force that they can't understand. He attributes Harry's lack of need for power to "love." In the Horcrux chapter, he seems to keep confusing love & revenge, as if he really doesn't understand the difference. I'm not sure that DD knows how to love any more than Voldemort does. DD was on the "good side", and he did try to bring down LV, but I can't ignore the role DD played in allowing Voldemort to rise, or indeed in creating the splintered society that allowed him to do so. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 15:34:48 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:34:48 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: <976883.71583.qm@web86202.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177858 > Irene: > Going back to your examples, I just can't see the equivalence between what he says and the real world "You are so clever for a black person" bigotry. His surprise is akin to a surprise of two short parents producing a 2.15m tall NBA player. Sure, can happen, but more surprising than if both parents were tall. > > To reiterate - yes, it's very petty that we had 7 books, some of them excessively huge, and yet the message is so muddled that we have to sit here and split these hairs. I don't normally require my literature to have messages, I even prefer it not to, but JKR very obviously wanted to say something about bigotry and prejudice. It did not work out very well, IMO. Magpie: Yes, I guess that's it. I mean, it seems like the one prejudice that's really cared about is the one against Muggle-borns since that's Voldemort's and they're Wizards. It is surprising, surely, when two Muggles produce a magical child at all (and it's true that JKR saying that they have a magical relative somewhere sort of goes against the idea that magic is anything like creativity that can show up in any one; you do need to be a member of the club, even if you don't know it). But the fact that it's surprising that Muggles produce a Witch does not necessarily make it surprising that they produce a Witch who's as good as one born to Wizards. But within canon it seems like thinking that Muggle-borns aren't as good is supposed to be wrong. That you can be just as good a Wizard no matter what you're bloodline. In CoS this disagreement is made explicit with Lucius saying Draco should be ashamed to be beaten by Hermione who has "no wizard family," Ron saying only people like the Malfoys think that way while the rest of them know all the blood stuff is rubbish. We're in the pov of a kid who's a Half-blood and who explicitly notes that his being brought up culturally as a Muggle does not put him behind other students. On the contrary, he's advantaged with special powers cropping up throughout the series. There's no difference at all made between Muggle-born kids and other kids. Dean isn't even sure what he is, and no one can tell. We've got exceptional Pure-bloods--James and Sirius, exceptional Half-bloods-- Harry, Snape, Tom Riddle, exceptional Muggle-borns--Hermione, Lily. There's no place where we can tell what someone's background is based on their parents. In fact, most if not all of the poorest Wizards we know are Purebloods. Where does the idea that Muggle-borns should have less potential come from? The only place I remember it being said is by various Slytherins, with nothing said about actual proof or reasoning. Hermione is insulted by being called Muggle. Ironically in my experience in fandom people who have argued that perhaps Pure-blood superiority was based on truth (either the truth that Muggle-borns are dangerous or that they are inferior) have been mocked and called Nazis. I just really think something's wrong when this is the central trait of the bad guy, the bad idea he appeals to in people, yet we're defending it in the end due to Slughorn. I have just as many problems with making it an good analogy to racism in our world as anyone else. I know it's not the same thing. I don't think "Mudblood" is the same as "N*****" at all (you can't divorce the word from the history), I don't think Muggle-borns work really as a race or as an ethnicity, or even as an immigrant group the way they're portrayed. I find the whole question of their place in the world poorly thought-out, underwritten and vague, a mish mosh for whatever's needed at that moment. But still, the idea of going into a class where the teacher thinks you've got less potential because of your parents? That sounds very much like what minorities deal with. I don't see how that's not being thought of as inferior, and I doubt it's not going to lead to be treated that way in subtle ways--even if you're being pushed for your talents--this happens all the time. Even Mike's analogy of saying something like "a Jewish track star--that's unusual." In many contexts that's a fine point to make. I remember that joke in Airplane! where somebody asks for "light reading" and is given a single page folded pamphlet on "famous Jewish sports legends." That does not come across at all as sleazy as Slughorn's promotion of himself in HBP. But that still doesn't seem to me to equate to being thought of as less inherently magical in a world obsessed with being magical, where being magical is the basis of everything. It's what makes you not a Muggle, not a Squib. It's what makes Neville's family drop him on his head. It's pretty much the only thing that matters, and I thought it was supposed to be important that having Muggle parents *didn't* make you any less magical. And being magical is what matters. Alla: And that I do not care ? WHY he cultivates the talent. To me it is enough that he **cultivates** the talent. If he gets something for himself as well, I say more power to him. I think that his talented students also get a lot out of it and I like it. Magpie: He cultivates talent if it will help him. And he cultivates plenty of otehr things that are equally important to him, like family connections--these things can be more important than talent depending on the situation. That's why to me focusing on "he promotes talent!" seems to me to be wanting him to be something he isn't. He's fine promoting people with good bloodlines over people with talent if talent hasn't gotten them into the Slug Club to begin with. I also don't think his excluding Draco should be taken as the kind of sign it seems taken as. He doesn't want kids of Death Eaters because he's afraid of Death Eaters. I don't see that means anything more than that. I don't think it's a big deal any time he doesn't put a Pureblood in his club. Nor does he cultivate the talent that I see, he just networks people that catch his eye. At least that's not what I consider cultivating talent. Sometimes talented kids get perks from Slughorn, that's great. That doesn't make him "the teacher who cultivates talent" for me by a longshot. To me he seems like he's probably far more likely to be helping to fill jobs with those who are well-connected already over those who might be more talented. That's how Cormac seems to see it too. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 15:51:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:51:26 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177859 Magpie: > There's no difference at all made between Muggle-born kids and other > kids. Alla: And who argues that there is a difference? Of course not, I agree. Magpie: > I just really think something's wrong when this is the central trait > of the bad guy, the bad idea he appeals to in people, yet we're > defending it in the end due to Slughorn. Alla: *I* am not defending this in Slughorn, I am just saying that as long as he does not **act** on this idea, I refuse to consider him to be bad person, just a person with some prejudice ideas in his head, which he IMO is aware and tries to get rid of. Speculating obviously. > Magpie: > He cultivates talent if it will help him. And he cultivates plenty of > otehr things that are equally important to him, like family > connections--these things can be more important than talent depending > on the situation. That's why to me focusing on "he promotes talent!" > seems to me to be wanting him to be something he isn't. Alla: Yeah, he does cultivate connections too. I do not see that it is more important to him than talent. IMO of course. magpie: He's fine > promoting people with good bloodlines over people with talent if > talent hasn't gotten them into the Slug Club to begin with. Alla: And that I see no proof at all in canon. I see no proof that talent with no connection will not get you the pass to his club. Obviously there is no guarantee that Slughorn's eye will notice EVERY talented kid, simply because he is one person, but every talent Slughorn sees he invites, no? Magpie: I also > don't think his excluding Draco should be taken as the kind of sign it > seems taken as. He doesn't want kids of Death Eaters because he's > afraid of Death Eaters. I don't see that means anything more than > that. I don't think it's a big deal any time he doesn't put a > Pureblood in his club. Alla: What? You do not think it is a big deal every time he does not invite a pureblood in his club? You also do not think that it is a big deal when he takes Muggleborns in his club? It seems to me that if one goes by this argument, it is impossible to prove that Slugghorn is not bigoted towards muggleborns, or at least that he does not act upon his prejudices. Because funnily both that he takes the group he allegedly bigoted against in his club AND that he does NOT always take the group that he allegedly bigoted towards in his club, do not count as evidence. Okay. What evidence would be acceptable then? Magpie: > Nor does he cultivate the talent that I see, he just networks people > that catch his eye. At least that's not what I consider cultivating > talent. Sometimes talented kids get perks from Slughorn, that's great. > That doesn't make him "the teacher who cultivates talent" for me by a > longshot. To me he seems like he's probably far more likely to be > helping to fill jobs with those who are well-connected already over > those who might be more talented. That's how Cormac seems to see it > too. Alla: To me helping to get jobs for talented kids does count as cultivating talent. IMO of course. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 9 15:54:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slughorn, slytherins etc. Message-ID: <24041659.1191945288054.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177860 Mike: >And Sluggy's club is a two-way street, because he does bring his >present club members to the attention of his former members, or puts >in a good word to the right ear. But that's bad because he doesn't >include every student?! Bart: True story #1: During my game designing days, one of the players in m group was an incredible negotiator. One of his more impressive feats was when, in a Monopoly tournament, he negotiated a three-way deal where all three players ended up with monopolies; it was only after the deal had concluded was it noticed that the player in question did not contribute anything to the deal, except making it (essentially, anything he traded out, he got back). Slughorn reminds me of this guy. True story #2: In 1987 or so, IBM came out with their PS/2 line of computers. In the meantime, Hayes, Inc. was the top manufacturer of modems (although US Robotics was rapidly catching up). The company I worked for planned to sell PS/2 Model 30 computers with Hayes internal modems. Only one small problem; the modems wouldn't work with our software. Even worse, they wouldn't work with the bundled in software provided by Hayes. As the communications programmer, I went in, and discovered the problem to be a bug in the BIOS of the computer. I created a work-around for our software, and passed it on to Hayes. It was included in all the software they made from then on, and every time Hayes had an event in the New York City area, I always got an invite, even after I had switched over to Internet programming. Now, back to the Slug. I see him as my friend from story #1. He is a skilled negotiator, where he always ends up getting a piece of the action, even if he contributes nothing but his negotiating skills, and does it so smoothly that the people involved don't even realize that he wasn't necessary. On the other hand, in his deals, everybody wins. When he negotiates an opportunity, the person who is actually providing the opportunity knows they are getting a highly qualified person, and the person receiving the opportunity gets a connection he or she might not otherwise have gotten. And, very much like my event invites, what Slughorn receives is valuable to him, but little or no cost to the person providing it. Essentially, the Slug Club creates opportunities. The only cost of joining is to cultivate a friendship with a man with whom one might not otherwise wish to associate. And, to many, it's demeaning to pretend to like someone you really couldn't care less about in return for personal advancement. JKR probably feels that way, because what I just described is, with the Death Eaters removed, the essence of Slytherin. It's an "old boy's club", so to speak; a place where you make connections early on, and use those connections to gain wealth and power later. Muggle-borns are not allowed in not just because of bigotry, but because they bring nothing to the table except unproven potential (note that the only two half-bloods we know of who got in were both extraordinarily talented and driven, even at age 11). Now, to digress a bit more, in my advisory capacity, I have come in contact with several professional strippers. Through their problems, and also from working with a strip club owner (in one of his other businesses), I've learned that, while stripping pays very good money ($500-$1000 per night, in New York), only a minority of the women who go into it actually enjoy it. The rest think they can live with it, become addicted to the income, but it gets to them, a little at a time; there's a VERY high rate of nervous breakdowns (I truly hope that I was able to prevent a few). Now, while being in the Slug Club is not quite the same as stripping, it has its similarities. Some may actually like the Slug. Some may not like him, but have no problem associating with him in return for opportunities. Some don't worry at all. And many would find it on the degrading side. I believe JKR is in the last group; at least her heroes look down on it (note that Ron is considered by the rest to be a little pathetic for wanting to get in). One of the many descriptions of the difference between the U.S. and Great Britain is that a Yank will look at someone in a Rolls Royce and say, "Someday, I'll be in one of those." and a Brit will look at the same person and say, "Someday, I'll get him out of there." While it's not at all universal, that appears to be the key to JKR's attitude towards Slytherin. They are indicative of the "old boy's club", as I mentioned, and that, in JKR's mind, is sufficient to make them something she has nothing to do with. Consider what Harry tells his kid in the epilogue, and see if it doesn't translate to, "If you get in Slytherin, it's because the Slytherins will want to network to YOU." Bart (who didn't even have to change the subject line) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 15:54:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:54:38 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177861 > Alla: > Sure, connections ARE criteria by which he selects his club members, > it is clear to me in canon. I would **prefer** that he would have > selected only on talent, no question about it, but to me the bottom > line is that he will select you if you only have talent and no > connections, and I like that. zgirnius: I would add to this, that it does not work like that. If he did not include in his little club the kids with the connections and the money, it would become just a club for the good students, sort of like the Math Club I was in in high school, which existed to amuse a small group of (talented) nerds and allow us to have some 'leadership' experience to tout on college applications. (Tee hee - I got the amazingly impressive title of copresident because I was one of two seniors in the club that year. Guess who my copresident was...). By including both the kids that are going to be successful out in the big world by virtue of their connections or wealth whatever Sluggie does, and the talented kids who may have neither, he is furthering the success of the talented kids in a way that simply inviting them to parties with other talented kids would not. He is facilitating the process whereby those talented kids *become* connected. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 16:13:18 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:13:18 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177862 > lizzyben: > > You seem to be phrasing it as one or the other - like people will > hate flawed DD & love faultless Snape. I don't see it that way at > all. They're both profoundly flawed & both horrible people in their > own way. But I'll take Snape's petty meaness over DD's Machievellian > manipulations any day. Snape acts like a mean & nasty person, and > actually IS mean & nasty person. I appreciate that level of honesty. > DD, on the other hand, acts like a kindly, benevolent person, but is > actually an egotistical power-hungry monster - and that just creeps > me out. Snape's flaws seem more human, in the end. DD's flaws are > those of thinking that he is a god. Prep0strus: You do seem to take everything in the worst possible light for him, though. It's not that I can't see your interpretation, but it just doesn't come across that way to me. I wrote a post recently that went fairly unnoticed (considering how some relatively innocent things get jumped on - I can just never tell what is controversial) in which I compared Dumbledore to God. As a God stand in, I think he still fits pretty well, even after DH Perhaps we are not meant to understand everything he does, but still accept that he loves and cares for people. Of course, taking away a metaphorical view like that, Dumbledore is a very flawed human. But really, I still think he's at worst a very successful Slytherin type. I don't think Dumbledore is 'power-hungry'. And I don't think he really exercises the power he does have. If anything, he ineffectually holds back his power at times when exercising him would bring him more acclaim, more glory, more power. I don't think Dumbledore thinks he is a god at all - I think he is tortured by his childhood, lonely, and with strong ideals that he is unsure of the best way to follow. Her certainly does things in a weird way - but perhaps not as weird for the wizarding world as it is for our world. There are many things simply accepted by everyone in their world that would not be accepted in ours. I think Dumbledore truly is concerned with equality, with stopping evil, and with caring for children. But he's flawed in how he attempts to reach his goals But I don't believe those flaws are because of self-aggrandizement, but simply because he does not know the appropriate path. > > lizzyben: > > And DD's record as a caretaker? Not so good. All the people he is > supposed to care for end up dead - Ariana, the Potters, Harry, > Sirius etc. So why is he Headmaster? IMO, because he knows that old > proverb -"the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." As > Headmaster, he plays a large role in shaping children's views & he > has a large responsibility in how they turn out. Dumbledore pits > Gryffindors & Slytherins against each other in the first year, > favoring Gryfs, & alienating & isolating Slyths. He treats Gryfs as > beloved heros, and Slyths as evil unworthy children. This guarantees > two things - a supply of Slyths to turn evil/Dark Wizards, and a > supply of Gryfs to love & obey him. In his role as Headmaster for > the past 50 years, DD has basically helped shape the dystopic > dysfunctional society we see. It is split, violent, full of hatred - > but totally idolizes Dumbledore. The ministry may fall, but DD's > cult of personality is secure. > Prep0strus But this is entirely your rather unorthodox view of the world. You and other espouse this 'poor-Slytherin' universe which I think is completely wrong. I don't think he alienates and isolates Slytherins at all. I think they do that for themselves. How are they any more segregated than any other house? For years before Harry, Slytherins have won the Quidditch cup. The sons and daughters of rich, influential members of the wizarding community, they think the world of themselves and have no problem asserting their superiority over other students. Dumbledore gives his heads of houses pretty free reign - and Minerva, with the exception of letting Harry on the Quidditch team, is a strict and fair teacher, not afraid to punish her own house. Severus is biased and cruel, letting Draco run wild while using any excuse to pull down a Gryffindor. There is no 'pitting of Slytherins against Gryffindor', especially that Dumbledore could control. If they are against each other, they do it themselves. Slytherins are not treated as evil and unworthy (even though you know my personal opinion that many of them ARE, and the rest are just nasty little gits). And the only Gryfs Dumbledore treats as heroes are... well, the heroes! The rest of the time, he's pretty hands-off - maybe TOO hands-off. But he is by no means setting the tone that you somehow see in Hogwarts. If anything, he is too lenient on the school policies on racial slurs - he could crack down on Slytherins there. And out in the world, opinion on Dumbledore seems pretty mixed. Eccentric appears more prevalent an opinion than personal god, IMO lizzyben: > Other people have gone into the nonsensical plan of DH, so I won't > repeat that. Prep0strus: Seriously. Sometimes I think I have to simply ignore DH in order to have a discussion that makes sense about any of these characters - well, at least the plot. I try to keep in the character 'development'. This is one of those cases where, even though it is Dumbledore's plan in the story, my brain has a hard time blaming him for it, because it's too busy blaming JKR for orchestrating the whole convoluted mess and putting it into his mouth. It's so weird. Lizzyben: Mostly, for me, it's the way DD talks to people that > makes him so delightfully creepy. He seems incapable of having an > actual conversation w/someone w/o attempting to manipulate them, > flatter them, put them down, increase control or exercise power. And > sometimes he'll say things in passing that reveal a truly > frightening worldview - like when he says that Merope died during > childbirth because she wasn't "courageous" & didn't love her baby > enough. Or when he's just in total awe of Harry because he > can't understand how someone could simply be uninterested in power. > I think it'll get even more appalling as people go back through the > novels. > Prep0strus: You may be right, but all it does for me is make him more Slytherin-like when I look at it that way. Which is why I get so amused that people who love Slytherin and see their positive traits and goodness have a vitriol for Dumbledore. Is it because he's successful at it? Or just because he's not a jerk while doing it? I reiterate, I would rather have someone who at least seems to care. He may do things wrong, he may be weird and ridiculous, and twisted. But I do think he is trying, in his own way, to make kids care about love and fairness. And he attempts to benevolent and kind and spread joy, despite the horrors his own life has contained. And I, unlike you, appreciate that more than the 'honesty' of Snape's petty, cruel behavior. Lizzyben: > DD talks about "love" the way other people talk about God - like > some mystical powerful force that they can't understand. He > attributes Harry's lack of need for power to "love." In the Horcrux > chapter, he seems to keep confusing love & revenge, as if he really > doesn't understand the difference. I'm not sure that DD knows how to > love any more than Voldemort does. DD was on the "good side", and he > did try to bring down LV, but I can't ignore the role DD played in > allowing Voldemort to rise, or indeed in creating the splintered > society that allowed him to do so. > Prep0strus: I think maybe JKR views 'love' and 'god' as the same thing. And may even view faith in Dumbledore the same as faith in god. But Dumbledore's instinct is to protect, rather than destroy. To teach rather than seek more power. I don't think DD plays any greater a role in allowing Voldy to rise than any other individual member of society. Voldemort was a charismatic, talented youngster, who everyone was hoodwinked by, except for possibly DD. The issues dividing the WW existed long before either was born. DD never had the kind of power you imply to stop his rise, and I do not see the kind of influence you see on the school that 'creates' these Slytherins that would go to him. I think your view of Gryfs and Slyths subverts your view of what is going on. I don't want to get back into the Slyth discussion, since I tend to go in circles, but in this book I think Slyths are bad eggs. I do not think Dumbledore creates them. He did not create the house system, or the hat. He is not the first headmaster. And he does not encourage bigotry of any sort. All he really does is show up at the end and praise the people who fought for things that are good. I think, if anything, it shows Dumbledore to be amazingly more ineffectual than it shows him to be powerful and influential. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 16:38:18 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:38:18 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177863 girnius: > By including both the kids that are going to be successful out in the > big world by virtue of their connections or wealth whatever Sluggie > does, and the talented kids who may have neither, he is furthering > the success of the talented kids in a way that simply inviting them > to parties with other talented kids would not. He is facilitating the > process whereby those talented kids *become* connected. Magpie: Yes, I know that's how it works. There is the world of the connected, into which many kids are born, but some kids are talented enough that they are also included in that circle despite not being born there. It's not a club for the talented, it's the club for people who are or will be connected. It's not about honing talent either. It's based on a mixture of things with one goal in mind: the club of the rich and famous. You need a balance of some kids bringing talent, some kids bringing the right background (if you had too many of the wrong sort the snobs would look down on it). This can lead to a talented kid becoming connected. It can also lead to a less talented person being given a job over one who is more talented because he's in the Slug Club for his connections. He needs kids who just bring "connected" as well as kids who are just talented, because talent alone or intelligence along is just the math club, and he couldn't care less about the math club. All of which still doesn't change that Slughorn's idea that being Muggle-born means less likely to be talented magically is either right or wrong (I thought the books tried to make a point that he was wrong, but I could be wrong) and that imo the way Slughorn runs his class as an extension of his Slug Club is not good teaching, and that I think his attitude about the potential of students based on blood would absolutely influence the experience many kids negatively in his class. Sometimes when people are surprised to see kids succeed in areas they're not supposed to do as well in based on their ethnicity, it goes back to different encouragement, expectations and treatment. -m From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 16:39:15 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:39:15 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > I would add to this, that it does not work like that. If he did not > include in his little club the kids with the connections and the > money, it would become just a club for the good students, sort of > like the Math Club I was in in high school, which existed to amuse a > small group of (talented) nerds and allow us to have > some 'leadership' experience to tout on college applications. (Tee > hee - I got the amazingly impressive title of copresident because I > was one of two seniors in the club that year. Guess who my > copresident was...). > > By including both the kids that are going to be successful out in the > big world by virtue of their connections or wealth whatever Sluggie > does, and the talented kids who may have neither, he is furthering > the success of the talented kids in a way that simply inviting them > to parties with other talented kids would not. He is facilitating the > process whereby those talented kids *become* connected. > Montavilla47: Exactly! And I'll admit that there's something that appeals to me in that arrangment. (It's my Capricornian nature.) Slughorn is considerably better than someone who unilaterally excludes Muggleborns, no matter how talented. He's also smarter, because those Muggleborns *are* likely to end up grateful to him (unless they end up resent him for the amount of butt-kissing they have to get into his club in the first place.) So, yes, Slughorn does show how Slytherin can function as a positive force in people's lives. But JKR is *so* careful to show the downside. Are those of you who like Slughorn really okay with the way he treats Ron? Are you comfortable with Hermione trotting off to the Slug Club while Ron is excluded? Do you not see how that's teaching her that Ron is essentially not worth her... not worth *her*? I agree that both Ron and Draco end up looking pathetic when they try (and fail) to get the slightest scrap of approval from Slughorn. But it isn't just Ron's jealousy that contributes to the breach between him and Hermione in sixth year. It's also that Hermione gets sucked into Slughorn's value system and that causes her to devalue Ron-- I just realized that this may be part of the reason she confunds McLaggen. She isn't content to let Ron fail or succeed on his own merit, but plays kingmaker. Her "help" is based on the premise that he can't earn the position on his own. It does help, because he doesn't have to go into a second round with McLaggen, but he did save those five goals on his own. Also, I don't see anything (at all) virtuous in Slughorn's rejection of Draco. It's not just that I happen to like Draco. At the time Slughorn rejects Draco, he doesn't know that Draco is a Death Eater. He only knows that Lucius Malfoy is one. So, he's rejecting Draco because of the connection to his father (which overrules the connection to Draco's grandfather, which seems to be positive). This is where I'm going to go out on a limb, but I think it's a strong limb. If Voldemort had succeeded in the first war, I think Slughorn would have gladly reaped the benefit of his Voldemort connections. He would have been sad, of course, that cheeky little Lily died. But he would have continued sitting on his cushions, strengthening the Death Eater network, and enjoying the box of crystalized pineapple that Voldemort sent him every Christmas. I don't think it was the ideology that turned Slughorn off the Death Eaters. It may have been partly the violence. But I think the main reason he's anti- Death Eater is because they *lost.* Montavilla47 From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 9 17:15:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Godric's Hollow Scene Message-ID: <15269919.1191950146510.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177865 Marianne: >I thought that was weird for another reason entirely. It sticks in >my mind that Voldemort told Harry at some point in the graveyard >scene in GoF that James fought bravely before he was killed. I >skimmed the scene briefly just now and all I found was Vmort saying >that James died "straight-backed and proud." Now, of course, >anything an Evil Overlord says must be taken with a grain of salt - >it's not like he'd be bound to tell the truth. However, I still >have the distinct impression from earlier books that James actually >fought Voldemort, where here I got the impression all he had time to >do was shout a warning to Lily and then he was killed. Bart: I daresay that going up against Morty without a wand is pretty damned brave. And fighting bravely is not the same thing as fighting WELL. Bart From jhenderson at ithaca.edu Tue Oct 9 15:34:32 2007 From: jhenderson at ithaca.edu (jhenderson9) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:34:32 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177866 "Carol" wrote: > We could easily explain the whole Gryffindor mentality, from James's > imaginary raised sword to Harry's "saving people thing" to Hermione's > attempts to solve every problem without consulting anybody to a strong > desire to be the "Rescuer" mixed with a less conscious desire to be > the "Persecutor" (James's bullying, Harry's desire for revenge against > Snape The fact that it was Snapes Worst Memory (SWM) can't be emphasized enough in understanding how all the elements from the scene tie in together. I was quite surprised that Book 7 did not explain more and even put James in a much better light [Rescuer vs Persecutor]. Since there was none, that does leave lots of room for speculation. Beginning with the Levicorpus spell rather than the exchange of name-calling, a key to the scene being SWM may come in answering the question, "If Snape invented Levicorpus as a non-verbal spell, how did James Potter know it was Snape who was using it and then learn its secret to be able to use it himself? Lupin told Harry that spell popularity comes and goes, and the Levicorpus spell became quite popular. For the scene to be SWM, however, it must not yet have been popular or Snape's humiliation would not have been so keen. The fact that Snape was livid about it , may not just have been that he was embarrassed in front of the whole school, but that he was revealed as its creator and had his own spell used against him. Perhaps Snape had used Levicorpus several times, but since it was non-verbal and he was so secretive, I suggest that not only was he was never detected before, perhaps wasn't even suspected. James, by exposing Snape and his secret, would not be such the bully after all that Harry seems to take from the scene. James still wouldn't be quite heroic, but he could be more justified for revealing the culprit. Especially if afterwards he shares the spell so that, as Lupin reports, it then became widely popular. I can't think of many good theories of how James would have acquired the spell, other than either that James or another Marauder stole the book (which seems unlikely) or that Snape confided in Lilly, and she shared it with James. With the latter explanation, the scene being a "worst memory" is even more emphasized, because Snape would have felt not just embarrassed but betrayed. Betrayal, not humiliation could have prompted the response of Mudblood name-calling. jhenderson From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 17:51:22 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:51:22 -0000 Subject: Prejudice/Slytherins/House Elves/Failed Messages in the Books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177867 Considering the subjects we have been discussing lately, primarily the role of the Slytherins in the wizarding world, and the place of "good" Slytherins, and also the general messages about prejudice and racism in the books, I wanted to contribute something more coherent than what I've been posting (or not posting)about the messages about prejudice in the books, and success, or lack thereof, of these messages. (By and large, I think the messages were not successful.) I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but this stuff has been swirling around for quite a while, and it's all coming out in a burst. First of all, let me tackle the question of whether or not there is an intended and definite message about racism and prejudice in the books. In my opinion, there is no question that JKR put in a very pervasive and pointed theme about racism in these books. From the very first book, she has associated the "good" side with the acceptance of half- wizards, werewolves, giants, and other WW outcasts. It was very evident to me (a very socially liberal person) from the outset that Harry and his bunch were "my" kind of people. People that would celebrate the differences that make us interesting and embrace those who are different. She made a point of having the Trio be friends with Neville, "practically a Squib", and Hagrid, a half-giant, and Lupin, a werewolf. JKR did this very pointedly and very loudly. There was no missing the idea - the good guys are accepting and tolerent, and the bad guys are racists. The "bad" guys, Slytherins and DEs, and to a point, the MoM, were not only prejudiced against muggleborns and halfblood wizards. They hated all those people that did not aspire to join their elite social status. The exchange between Draco and Harry in PS/SS was enough to show us that Harry's choice to spurn Draco's friendship was enough to make him a social outcast in the world of pureblood wizards. JKR made a very obvious correlation between prejudice and being a bad guy, and between tolerance and being a good guy. At least for a while. I believe the waters started to get muddy when JKR introduced the House Elf issue, and later on, discussed goblins and centaurs. However, let me focus on the House Elf issue, which I believe is the biggest failure of the books. Introducing characters that are obviously powerfully magical, are enslaved by all kinds of wizards, not only "bad" ones, and are "happy" to be so enslaved was, IMO, a big mistake. At least to me, a History graduate student, the parallels between African slavery and House Elves were too great to be ignored. Whether she intended that or not, that is definitely what came across, and she handled the resolution of it incredibly poorly. It is simply not ok to say that enslaved people/elves are happy to be enslaved. It is also not ok, from both a literary and moral standpoint, to indroduce a storyline about educating and freeing said slaves, and let that storline peter out and die. JKR led us to believe that SPEW was important. She had several adult wizards, including Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin, voice their opinions about House Elf rights, and how Hermione was correct in wanting to get rights for them. However, in DH, this storyline was dropped pretty much completely, and we see Harry, our hero, treating Kreacher like a servant as his final House Elf moment. Kreacher and the Hogwarts house elves have just fought bravely against Voldemort and his reward is to make Harry some food? That really bothered me. It went against everything she had been building towards for 3 books with SPEW and the various opinions about rights for magical creatures. She really dropped the ball on this. Showing Ron being concerned that the House Elves wouldn't die was a lame and underwhelming moment, and basically the end of what should have been an empowering story about how the House Elves finally realized their own power and that they wanted to be creatures of strength and part of the WW, not just the slaves of it. To end that theme by leaving them happy and in servitude was an incredibly disturbing message, in my opinion. It is never ok to have people be enslaved, whether they think they "like" it or not. That says something incredibly upsetting about the WW, and I cannot help but feel that there is a RW connection. She made a point about slavery and then let it drop - you just can't do that. It's a serious issue, and you shouldn't bring it up unless you are prepared to deal with it and see it through. Another problem with her initially black and white message of prejudice is that she chose to confuse the picture by having the bad guys be fallible and human, and having the good guys sometimes be cold or cruel. She also showed that people we were supposed to like could be prejudiced (Ron, Fred, George, and Harry didn't care about elf rights), and that people we were obviously supposed to dislike could be quite likeable and sypathetic (Snape is obviously much less complex for her than he is for us). This, to me, is a big problem. If you are going to write a book with heavy themes about bigotry and racism, then you need to be clear about where your opinions lie. JKR muddies her own waters, and it really weakened her original points. Moving on to the issue about Slytherin, I think JKR was pretty clear about who these people are. They are dark, bad, and racist, and we shouldn't like them. For me, this was easy and clear. With the exceptions of Snape and Slughorn, I find no Slyths interesting or appealing in any way and I think she did a good job of making this house a parallel for the racism and hatred in the real world. I don't think she meant Slytherin to be a specific reference to Nazis or the Klan, although these groups certainly embody hatred, but she definitely intended the Slytherins to be the opposite of the tolerant and accepting good guys. I disagree with those who think Slytherin was intended to be the opposite of specifically Gryffindor - I think Slytherin was supposed to be the embodiment of what was wrong in the WW, within and without of Hogwarts. However, again, she fails to put the story to a satisfactory ending. She could have had Slytherin House realize the error of their ways, and join the fight against Voldy. She could have had Slytherin House be expunged from Hogwarts after the battle. She could have gotten rid of the House System altogther (which, as we've discussed previously, would have fit the best with the messages of books 1 - 6). She did none of these things. Slytherin House just keeps on keepin' on, and there is no monumentous change in the structure of Hogwarts,which I think most us us agree, is quite flawed. There were many different resolutions to the story of Slytherin House which would have suited the theme of bigotry being evil, but she chose to let the story just kind of die a slow death. Not good storytelling. As for the issues with Gryffindor being the house of "elites" or being the place where all the "good" people go, I think that's got some validity, but I don't see it as that black and white. I think all the Houses, except Slytherin, were meant to have good qualities, and we deinitely see good people from all three. I personally would have liked Hufflepuff the best - I think they best embody the idea of inclusion and tolerance...and certainly they weren't stupid or incompetant, just were people that didn't fit in the other 3 houses. I think the Gryffs are JKR's favorites, but she certainly made a point of showing good and brave folks from Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, too (Cedric, Luna, Justin Fitch-Fletchley, Ernie Macmillen, and Prof. Sprout, to name a few). So, I think it's extreme to say that Gryffs are the only good house, or that she intended that to be the message. I think what bothers me the most is that the first 6 books were about the WW at large, and DH was about Harry. We were set up to watch Harry change the world. We were led to beleive that Hermione would lead a House Elf revolution, that racism would go down with Voldy, that the Slytherins would be redeemed or perish, that the half wizards and magical beings that aren't wizards would finally be seen as equals...and then we got a story about Harry coming into his own and being brave. Well, I knew Harry was brave, and I knew he would save the world and defeat Voldy...but I expected some sort of resolution for all the other storylines that had been going on for 4000+ pages. And very darned few of them were resolved. She had a world view, a message about what kind of world we should strive for, and it all fell to pieces at the end. I don't know why...I know some have said that those themes aren't really in there and that we expected too much, but let me tell ya, they're in there! I am rereading OotP right now, and have just read 1-4 again, and I see the bigotry theme stronger than ever. She made of a real point of this for 6 books and then just let it die. Now, unlike some other folks, for whom the books were ruined by DH, I still love the series, by and large. I just don't understand how DH fits into the other six. I still like DH in many ways, but I feel like it was written by a different person. I think what is unfortunate is that she could have easily cleared everything up with a few simple lines about freed House Elves, or the death of the House system. It wouldn't have taken much time...but she chose not to, and I think the book is much weaker for it. Ok, hand cramping. : ) I may have more later, but ta-ta for now, Katie From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 18:32:21 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:32:21 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177868 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jhenderson9" wrote: jhenderson: > Beginning with the Levicorpus spell rather than the exchange of > name-calling, a key to the scene being SWM may come in answering the > question, "If Snape invented Levicorpus as a non-verbal spell, how did > James Potter know it was Snape who was using it and then learn its > secret to be able to use it himself? > > Lupin told Harry that spell popularity comes and goes, and the > Levicorpus spell became quite popular. For the scene to be SWM, > however, it must not yet have been popular or Snape's humiliation > would not have been so keen. The fact that Snape was livid about it , > may not just have been that he was embarrassed in front of the whole > school, but that he was revealed as its creator and had his own spell > used against him. Perhaps Snape had used Levicorpus several times, but > since it was non-verbal and he was so secretive, I suggest that not > only was he was never detected before, perhaps wasn't even suspected. > James, by exposing Snape and his secret, would not be such the bully > after all that Harry seems to take from the scene. James still > wouldn't be quite heroic, but he could be more justified for revealing > the culprit. Especially if afterwards he shares the spell so that, as > Lupin reports, it then became widely popular. > > I can't think of many good theories of how James would have acquired > the spell, other than either that James or another Marauder stole the > book (which seems unlikely) or that Snape confided in Lilly, and she > shared it with James. With the latter explanation, the scene being a > "worst memory" is even more emphasized, because Snape would have felt > not just embarrassed but betrayed. Betrayal, not humiliation could > have prompted the response of Mudblood name-calling. Montavilla47: I've been wondering about that since HBP--specifically, how James would have learned a non-verbal spell that Snape would never in a million years teach him. Along with the inconsistency of SWM taking place in fifth year, when the spell is written down in a sixth year text. If we didn't have Snape specifically tell Harry that he invented the spell, the natural conclusion would be that he obsessed over the spell after SWM, and the mass of scribbling and crossouts was him reverse-engineering the spell a year later. Which is in keeping with the idea of Snape as someone envious of James's magical ability and scrambling to keep up. But the revelation about Snape *inventing* the spell that James used turns all that on its head. We're left to wonder how James stole that spell from Snape. The most direct line from one to the other is through Lily Evans. If she and Snape were friends prior to SWM, then he could have plausibly taught her his fun trick. We also know that prior and (during) SWM, Lily insists that James is a "toerag" and that she scorns him. If Lily did teach James that spell, then it's a double betrayal. Not only is she letting someone else learn Snape's secret spell, but she must be considerably more friendly with James than she pretends to Snape. At least from Snape's POV. Of course, she may have done no such thing. Perhaps she taught the spell to Mary MacDonald, who taught it to Sirius, or Lupin, or Peter, who taught it to James. If it was that popular in fifth year, there probably were a lot of kids who learned it. I don't see James's use of the spell as exposing Snape as the inventer, though. There's no hint or clue about that in the text, and for the exposure to have happened, there would need to be some kind of recognition of that. Montavilla47 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 19:09:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:09:40 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177869 > Montavilla47: > But JKR is *so* careful to show the downside. Are those of you > who like Slughorn really okay with the way he treats Ron? Are > you comfortable with Hermione trotting off to the Slug Club > while Ron is excluded? Do you not see how that's teaching her > that Ron is essentially not worth her... not worth *her*? zgirnius: I don't like Slughorn, actually. I don't like old boy networks, and prefer to try and get by on what talent I have instead, because that is more comfortable for me personally. Some movers and shakers I have met bore me (and I them); I prefer to socialize with my fellow nerds, even if they offer me fewer opportunities for advancement. But I do think Sluggie is a 'good Slytherin'. I agree with Mike - Sluggie does not have an obligation to further everyone's success to the same degree during his free time, so I do not have a problem with the way he treats Ron. I don't think he is a particularly good teacher, but at a school that includes Hagrid, Trelawney, and Binns among the staff, I would not point to him as a particular problem, and he adds a 'fun' dimension other teachers lack that may well bring something new to the table in terms of teaching and learning styles. I am totally comfortable with Hermione trotting off to the club, it is Ron I have the problem with. If Hermione goes on to be a much greater "success" in life than Ron, and he can't deal with that, they are better off breaking up right then and there over the Slug Club. He should find someone small and weak enough for his fragile ego to handle, and Hermione should live as though the sky is the limit. \climbs off feminist soapbox (Aside: I think Ron CAN handle it, he's had a lot of practise being Harry's best friend and the youngest of the variously accomplished and outstanding male Weasleys. I think Hermione needs to let Ron know that she loves and admires him for traits other than worldly success. We see some indication of both in DH). My personal hotbuttons aside, Hermione wanted to include Ron and was planning to invite him to the Christmas party. She did not change her mind because of Sluggie, but because Ron hurt her feelings. She then went with McLaggen not because of his connections, but because she calculated that would annoy Ron the most. I think this was precisely because it does not matter to her, she did not pick Ron because he was the Quidditch Keeper, or a Pureblood, or something, but because she loves him. > Montavilla: > I don't think it was the ideology that turned Slughorn > off the Death Eaters. It may have been partly the > violence. But I think the main reason he's anti- > Death Eater is because they *lost.* zgirnius: I don't think we really have a basis to decide what he would have done in the first war if Voldemort had not vaporized himself and had won. However, in the second war, Voldemort was indeed 'greater and more terrible' than before. He had taken over the government and his puppets were running things. And everyone seemed to believe that he would win the Battle of Hogwarts. Yet Sluggie joined the opposite side in that fight, in spite of his own doubts whether that was 'wise'. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 9 21:39:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:39:04 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177870 > zgirnius: > > By including both the kids that are going to be successful out in the > big world by virtue of their connections or wealth whatever Sluggie > does, and the talented kids who may have neither, he is furthering > the success of the talented kids in a way that simply inviting them > to parties with other talented kids would not. He is facilitating the > process whereby those talented kids *become* connected. > Pippin: I'd like to add that for kids like Lily and Hermione who don't have any close connections in the WW outside Hogwarts, Slughorn's club could be extremely valuable. Sure, he might overlook some kids who deserve to be recognized, but he is providing a useful service in return for his crystallized pineapple and box seats that as far as we know isn't available otherwise. Lily and Hermione were both fortunate enough to marry into pureblood families that already had connections, but it's nice to know they had some other options. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 9 22:03:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:16 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?/ Drama triangle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177871 > > Montavilla47: > I've been wondering about that since HBP--specifically, how James > would have learned a non-verbal spell that Snape would never > in a million years teach him. > > Along with the inconsistency of SWM taking place in fifth year, when > the spell is written down in a sixth year text. If we didn't have Snape > specifically tell Harry that he invented the spell, the natural conclusion > would be that he obsessed over the spell after SWM, and the > mass of scribbling and crossouts was him reverse-engineering the > spell a year later. Pippin: Snape, like Hermione, needn't limit himself to assigned reading. Considering that house full of books at Spinner's End, there's no reason he wouldn't have read and learned all his mother's Hogwarts texts, which would also be a likely explanation for how he learned so many curses. As for how the spell became popular, I think it's much more likely that Snape taught it to his Slytherin friends, some of whom had the bad habit of mouthing spells that were supposed to be non-verbal. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 9 22:23:01 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:23:01 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > It sticks in my mind that Voldemort told Harry at some point in the > graveyard scene in GoF that James fought bravely before he was killed. Voldemort said it all right, only not in GoF, but in PS/SS. "I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight ... but your mother needn't have died ..." (p.294 Am. ed.). Maybe, while writing the first book, JKR intended James to die fighting, but changed her mind later, otherwise I don't know how to explain this inconsistency. LV doesn't have any reason to lie here, IMO. zanooda From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 00:31:39 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:31:39 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177873 > zanooda > > Voldemort said it all right, only not in GoF, but in PS/SS. "I > killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight ... but > your mother needn't have died ..." (p.294 Am. ed.). Maybe, while > writing the first book, JKR intended James to die fighting, but > changed her mind later, otherwise I don't know how to explain this > inconsistency. LV doesn't have any reason to lie here, IMO. Mike: Just to add on here, Voldemort started off with the lie in PS/SS. "They [Harry's parents] died begging me for mercy..." (same pg) It was after Harry yelled "LIAR" that Voldemort admitted that his parents were brave and said what you quoted. So LV did lie then changed to the truth, which really mucks things up when we see what actually happened, imo. I can see what Jen said about JKR making James and Lily appear as "loving humans" first and foremost. But it still doesn't square with what LV said earlier in the series. I can't get my mind around "a courageous fight" and James running to the door unarmed. What did he do, throw a table lamp at LV? ;) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 10 01:29:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:29:42 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177874 Zanooda: > Voldemort said it all right, only not in GoF, but in PS/SS. "I killed > your father first, and he put up a courageous fight ... but your > mother needn't have died ..." (p.294 Am. ed.). Maybe, while writing > the first book, JKR intended James to die fighting, but changed her > mind later, otherwise I don't know how to explain this inconsistency. > LV doesn't have any reason to lie here, IMO. > Pippin: Harry had been trying to sneak away, but when that didn't work he defied Voldemort's attempt to make him think his parents were cowards. Voldemort jeers at his useless bravery, since he thinks Harry can do nothing to him. I think he was hoping to make Harry feel inferior to his father who (according to this) was able to put up a fight. Pippin From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Oct 10 02:28:08 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:28:08 -0000 Subject: FILK: So I'll Use Dark Arts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177875 So I'll Use Dark Arts (DH, Chap. 30) To the tune of Heaven Help My Heart from CHESS the musical by Benny Anderson, Bjorn Ulvaeus & Tim Rice (sung in the style of an American C&W tune) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4B4mr369CY THE SCENE: Ravenclaw Commons. Good thing that HARRY & McGONAGALL weren't being monitored by enlightened human rights advocates! HARRY: If Amycus wants to deal with us He had better behave And not spit That's a thing that I'll not permit Unaverse In a case like this toward a Crucio curse So I used an Unforgiven spell Hope it really hurt like hell The price of expectoration's to be torn apart So I'll use Dark Arts Toward Minerva M I'll make Death Eaters keep their distance Since we cannot forgive, then I'll get them McGONAGALL: Gryffindor vows to be firm and strong And to show gallantry Potter proves He is in sync with Godric's groove Is it sin To make DEs taste of their own medicine? Can I truly say, "Imperio" As blithe as "Cheerio"? Helping disarm our worst opponents Set Carrows apart So I'll use Dark Arts I have both their wands Shimmering rope appears from thin air Shimmering rope securing both their bonds HARRY & McGONAGALL: That's what we heard from the Lestranges These spells we must mean - so we'll use Dark Arts So we'll use Dark Arts - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 10 03:30:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:30:39 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177876 > Betsy Hp: > Lily spends a lot of time chastising Snape. And he spends a lot of > time trying to get her attention. Pippin: Once she finds out he can tell her about the WW, she spends a lot of time pleading for information and reassurance. And at Hogwarts she apparently benefitted from his potions genius, studying, like Harry, from an advanced text. It's clear that the HPB book was not her handwriting, which Harry recognized instantly as being like his own, not the HBP's. Betsy Hp: I was also incredibly unimpressed that > Lily blamed Snape for the two of them reading Petunia's letter. Pippin: "Lily gave herself away by half glancing towards where Snape stood, nearby." --DH ch 33 She didn't mean to expose Snape. But she hadn't got his aptitude for sneakery. She was hardly a saint, being so taken with James. She also gets along famously with Slughorn and seems to have liked the old devil, not to mention hitting it off with Sirius once he'd stopped hexing people for fun. > Betsy Hp: > I did find that weird yes. Though, I'm sure Dumbledore helped Snape > into his hair-shirt every morning. Pippin: Now this is just plain contradicted by canon. Dumbledore didn't even know that Snape was still mourning Lily. He was shocked. "After all this time?" ? DH ch 33 > > >>Pippin: > > > > So what does it have to do with the Slytherin dynamic? > > Betsy Hp: > To me, everything. From the age of eleven certain children are told > they're bad and disgusting. Pippin: Where in canon does any adult tell Slytherin children that they're bad and disgusting? The Hat worries that it does wrong by Sorting the children, but look at it this way: if some people really are innately bad, then mingling those children with the other Houses won't help. They will still find their real friends and form a subculture of their own. OTOH, if Slytherin is a culture, and discrimination against them is ethnic and not based on anything innate, then abolishing Slytherin would be ethnic cleansing. It's not as if they're doing something illegal. And it's not as if the Slytherins and their families aren't fond of dear old Slytherin. Slughorn isn't the least bit ashamed of his House. Phineas has himself painted in his House colors. The Blacks have serpent motifs everywhere, and Regulus had Slytherin banners proudly displayed. Personally, I don't think Slytherins are innately bad. Their talent for deception is misunderstood, IMO, like Parseltongue, as the mark of a bad wizard. But the WW survives on deception, and as Dumbledore says of the cloak, the important thing is that you use it to protect others, not just yourself. Their culture does not offer them much moral guidance, unlike the Hufflepuffs who are taught to value loyalty, and the Gryffindors who are taught to value chivalry. So their values will be the ones they bring with them, and those aren't always good. In DH we see that Gryffindors have some hair shirts of their own. Dumbledore has lived a life of secret shame, having to stand for goodness when he wonders if he's really any better than Voldemort. His introspection stands for Harry's, (it may *be* Harry's if King's Cross is a hallucination) and is far more effective since his lifetime was much longer and his reputation for goodness much greater. DH reminds me of a Heinlein book where some Fred and George-ish characters nearly get somebody killed through their carelessness. Their dad is about to punish them (with a belt, no less) but then changes his mind. They'll have to live with their mistake, he tells them. That's what adults have to do. There's no one to take responsibility for the adult Trio, to punish them or grant them forgiveness. They have to live with what they did. We don't see their guilt just as we didn't see Dumbledore's. But it's still there, IMO. *My* Harry will bear forever the guilt of not having tried to save Snape, and is now dedicated, like Dumbledore, to trying to see the good in people. But he's not going to publicly flagellate himself just to give people like Rita Skeeter a thrill. I'm reading that into the text. But it's a fairy tale. That's what you're supposed to do. It makes more sense than having to read the humanity of one quarter of wizard kind *out* of the story after JKR went to such lengths to put it there. It's a style of story-telling reminiscent of the Book of Genesis, IMO, where we're seldom told what the characters are thinking, and parallel story lines are not made explicit, yet for thousands of years people have connected emotionally with the characters and found the parallels themselves. > > >>Pippin: > > The expectation that Draco would morph into a hero can > > not have been based on canon, IMO... > > Betsy Hp: > I agree. Which is why this wasn't an expectation of mine. I > just expected a moment of positive action. Pippin: He does take action, refusing to recognize Ron and Hermione, and staying behind with Crabbe and Goyle, refusing to let them injure Harry and helping to rescue Goyle. > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > And why are we supposed to think Snape is worried about the > > > Malfoys? Is there anything in DH to suggest it? > Betsy Hp: > They all *hint* to something that I expected to see expressed in DH. > But we got nothing. Which means I can only conclude that those hints > were meaningless. Spice for the broth, but no meat. Pippin: What we got in DH was confirmation that the relationship existed. Lucius patted Snape on the back to welcome him to Slytherin. But Snape couldn't help the Malfoys any more than he could help Charity Burbage. Still, *somebody* made sure Voldemort didn't find out that Dumbledore had lost his wand to Draco before Snape got there. The Carrows knew that Dumbledore was defenseless. But somehow Voldie never found out. Hmmmm.... > > Betsy Hp: > How is Snape's death scene more fully realized than Sirius's, Dobby's > or Dumbledore's? Pippin: Snape's death is the only one that Harry knowingly witnesses from beginning to end, and the only one he might perhaps have prevented, if he'd intervened before Voldemort had struck. He loses Sirius behind the veil before Sirius himself even realizes what's happening, he does not see the knife strike Dobby, and does not admit to himself that Dumbledore has died until a good half an hour after the fall from the tower. > > Betsy Hp: That an idiot like Voldemort could so easly throw both Snape and Dumbledore for a loop, causing students to be injured or killed under their watch, doesn't impress me much. I wasn't looking for perfection. I was looking for effort. Pippin: What student was killed under Snape or Dumbledore's watch? As far as I know, no student was ever killed while at Hogwarts except Moaning Myrtle, and Dumbledore was not headmaster then. Sure Voldemort was a maniac and made some strategic blunders. That doesn't mean that it was easy to thwart him. Complaining that some students suffered sounds to me like complaining that Oskar Schindler didn't save enough Jews. Compared to who? Betsy Hp> > What can say is that, for me, even the characters I found most > interesting in the beginning, became rather pathetic and small in the > end. Which is not how I like to end a reading. But there you are. > Pippin: What I see is that they became more realistic in the end. Less legendary, less powerful, but more poignant and more relevant to real life, where social problems that have lasted for centuries do not disappear because they have come to the attention of a few idealistic teenagers who are shocked (shocked!) to discover that people are being exploited. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 04:15:54 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:15:54 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Just to add on here, Voldemort started off with the lie in PS/SS. You are right, but the first lie makes at least some sense to me. LV wants Harry to give up the Stone, better without a fight, so he is trying to scare him, to make him believe that even his parents were scared and begged for mercy. Or he could have said the "begging" bit out of pure nastiness :-). > So LV did lie then changed to the truth It looks to me like he changed to another lie, not to the truth :-). I read the explanation Pippin offered, and maybe there is some truth in it, but I'm still inclined to believe that this "courageous fight" thing is just JKR's mistake. zanooda From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 06:17:16 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:17:16 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177878 "Carol" wrote: > he called her the worst name he > could think of and immediately regretted it. I agree and I think we can all relate to that; we can all recall saying things we wish we had not. I think the reason it was Snape's worst memory was not because of James's humiliation of him, it was because when he said that word he lost Lilly's love. Note that in book 7 he refused to let anyone use that word in his presence. > the unreliable narrator at work again I don't see why you say that. The narrator may be a bit too laconic from time to time, but I can't remember him being downright deceitful. JKR may be tricky but she plays fair. Eggplant From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 15:46:12 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:46:12 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: <<>> > Betsy Hp: That an idiot like Voldemort could so easly throw both Snape and Dumbledore for a loop, causing students to be injured or killed under their watch, doesn't impress me much. I wasn't looking for perfection. I was looking for effort. Pippin: What student was killed under Snape or Dumbledore's watch? As far as I know, no student was ever killed while at Hogwarts except Moaning Myrtle, and Dumbledore was not headmaster then. Sure Voldemort was a maniac and made some strategic blunders. That doesn't mean that it was easy to thwart him. Complaining that some students suffered sounds to me like complaining that Oskar Schindler didn't save enough Jews. Compared to who? ****Katie: I agree that Voldemort turned out to be a less than impressive villain, but I have to point out that Cedric Diggory died under DD's watch, and many other students almost did. During CoS, Hermione, Colin Creevey, Penelope Clearwater...and during the Triwizard Tournament, with evil Moody prowling around right under DD's nose, anyone could have died. And with Snape, well, I think he absolutely did the best he could to keep the kids safe, under the circumstances. I admit that Voldemort's intelligence seems less than impressive. And the fact that he could thwart DD multiple times doesn't say a lot about DD's intelligence. However, the story demands that Voldemort be a wicked intellect, or it wouldn't have taken so long to thwart him! Katie From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 10 22:28:40 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:28:40 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177880 > Katie: > I admit that Voldemort's intelligence seems less than impressive. > And the fact that he could thwart DD multiple times doesn't say > a lot about DD's intelligence. However, the story demands that > Voldemort be a wicked intellect, or it wouldn't have taken so > long to thwart him! Tiffany: Voldemort was a good villain in terms of ideas & planning, but he made too many strategic blunders to be taken seriously in many of the books that I read. His magical powers & raw intelligence was very impressive, but he seemed to goof up too often every now & then for someone of his caliber. I know he was the last direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin & was known for being like him in several ways. However, he seemed to be letting his pride & desire to rule Hogwarts get in the way of truly impactful decision making. I'm not saying he doesn't have the goods to be someone to be reckoned with, but he had a lot of poor strategic decision making that hurt him there. I was in awe of what he was capable of & could do in SS, esp. in his first appearances in the book. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 23:13:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:13:49 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177881 > zanooda > > It looks to me like he changed to another lie, not to the truth. > I read the explanation Pippin offered, and maybe there is some > truth in it, but I'm still inclined to believe that this > "courageous fight" thing is just JKR's mistake. Mike: Changed from one lie to another lie? Hmm, what a delicious way to portray the villian. The problem I have is that we don't find out anything from book 1 until book 7 about this second "lie". It kind of falls flat with that much time between. It also makes a mockery of Harry's belief that his dad fought "courageously" if his dad didn't really fight at all. This makes me think that JKR's mistake was not remembering what she wrote in PS/SS instead of the second lie scenario. I can't see why Voldemort would prop up James to Harry. Contrary to making Harry feel useless, I think that would only give Harry the courage to try to emulate his father, make a stand of his own. I can't see how Voldemort wouldn't be thinking the same way. And that wouldn't make Harry handing over the Stone easier, imo. Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 00:32:28 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:32:28 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177882 > > Katie: > > > I admit that Voldemort's intelligence seems less than impressive. > > And the fact that he could thwart DD multiple times doesn't say > > a lot about DD's intelligence. However, the story demands that > > Voldemort be a wicked intellect, or it wouldn't have taken so > > long to thwart him! Mike: I too was less than impressed with Voldemort's intellect. It seems he didn't have great intelligence so much as great knowledge of magic, with the few but important areas in which he was lacking. As Goddlefrood pointed out 2 months ago, anyone that thought he was the only one to discover the Room of Hidden Things in the face of those mountains of evidence to the contrary, well... way beyond simply an overactive ego, imo. I wonder if we are suppose to believe that with his loss of humanity through soul splitting came a loss of logical thinking? How else to explain his bouts of pure stupidity and lack of reasoning? As for his ability to match wits with Dumbledore; it's not there, imo. Dumbledore leads him around like a horse with a carrot in both PS/SS and in OotP. Voldemort can only match Dumbledore in magical ability, and even there I think he comes up a little short. It's LV's willingless to use spells that DD won't that makes up the gap, imo. LV keeps his minnions under his thumb with shear magical ability, and his reign of terror is fueled by his and his DEs use of spells that others won't use. Probably why Crouch Sr. decided to fight fire with fire and use those same spells. > Tiffany: > Voldemort was a good villain in terms of ideas & planning, but he > made too many strategic blunders to be taken seriously in many of > the books that I read. His magical powers & raw intelligence was > very impressive, but he seemed to goof up too often every now & > then for someone of his caliber. Mike: OK, this might be quibbling, but I find Voldemort's strategic thinking OK, his overarching planning wasn't lacking. It was his tactical thinking that was woebegone, his implementation of that grand scheme with his various plots. We've all noted his convoluted GoF plan. Side note: did anyone else notice the the Tri-Wizard Cup was the only portkey that didn't activate at a certain time? DD set up two in OotP that he set off himself, counted down the departure time. But Barty Jr. couldn't have done the same for the TWC, he couldn't see that far into the maze, he told us so. Also, I'm pretty sure Voldemort didn't activate the cup for Harry's return trip. ;) I would add LV's ridiculous thinking in OotP to the list of tactical blunders. First off, he could get 12 DEs into the DoM unnoticed, but he couldn't go himself to retrieve the prophesy? Second, if his plan was to lure in Harry so he would get blamed - fine, just sit next to the shelf and when you hear the boy come into the Hall of Prophesies, snatch up the orb and skeedaddle. There are several ways in and out of that room, and I'd imagine Voldemort could figure out how to become invisible to effect his escape if he needed to do that. When your need to feed your superego outweighs your need to complete a successful plan, you've lost the priviledge of being considered intelligent, Tom. > Tiffany: > I know he was the last direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin & was > known for being like him in several ways. However, he seemed to be > letting his pride & desire to rule Hogwarts get in the way of truly > impactful decision making. I'm not saying he doesn't have the goods > to be someone to be reckoned with, but he had a lot of poor > strategic decision making that hurt him there. I was in awe of what > he was capable of & could do in SS, esp. in his first appearances > in the book. Mike: Do you get the idea that maybe we were suppose to be seeing some of that vaunted Gaunt intellect coming out in Tom? I think it wasn't just his soul that became dangerously unstable. Because, I'm with you on this one Tiffany. LV scared the bejesus out of me in PS/SS. Probably because he was this almost mythical character that is suddenly manifest in front of Harry in a most bizarrely magical and grotesque form. But I realize now that I was in awe of his magical abilities. In retrospect, he's never shown as supremely intelligent, just well travelled and extremely accomplished in many forms of magical arts. And, of course, psychotically motivated to use any power available to him. Mike, sticking his tongue out at Tommy Riddle :-P From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 02:55:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:55:09 -0000 Subject: Dumb Voldemort (Was: Snape Reduced LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177883 > Mike, sticking his tongue out at Tommy Riddle :-P Goddlefrood: He wouldn't have the brains to know what you meant ;-) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 03:20:25 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:20:25 -0000 Subject: Prejudice/House Elves/Failed Messages in the Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177884 > Katie > > First of all, let me tackle the question of whether or not there is > an intended and definite message about racism and prejudice in the > books. In my opinion, there is no question that JKR put in a very > pervasive and pointed theme about racism in these books. Mike: Sorry this might not be very helpful. I've called what we see in the books more like ethnic bigotry, at least that's what I'd call the pervasive theme of blood purity. Muggleborns don't look different than pure-bloods and they don't hail from a different land. OTOH, there are witches and wizards of the different races but they aren't discrimated against based on their race. I realize I'm splitting hairs here. It's just that JKR bothered to include the different races and didn't show discrimination based on that. That's why I point out that racism doesn't work for me. > Katie > From the very first book, she has associated the "good" side > with the acceptance of half-wizards, werewolves, giants, and > other WW outcasts. Mike: This is where it gets difficult for me, because clearly we are dealing with different *species* here. (except werewolves which I suppose are just afflicted wizards) Most especially, when we start talking about House Elves, Goblins, Centaurs, Merpeople, Trolls, and maybe Hags, we've crossed over into talking about "other" sentient beings. (I guess Trolls are sentient ) This puts us beyond ethnicity, but I would still treat transgressions as bigotry when it involves discrimination against these "other" sentients. > Katie > > I believe the waters started to get muddy when JKR introduced the > House Elf issue, and later on, discussed goblins and centaurs. < ginormous snip of House Elf enslavement analysis> Mike: Katie, I don't disagree with your House Elf analysis at all. But I'd like to explore a possible alternate reading/explanation for the way JKR treated the "Servant Problem" (borrowed from Red Hen). Let me start by saying that this reading would go down much easier if JKR had used the term "enchantment" instead of "enslavement" to describe the House Elf binding condition. Enslavement has a clear connotation of being imposed by one group onto another. Enchantment could and probably would be read as a natural order of things, not an imposition but a condition of being. (kinda like Snape to James ) What if the House Elf situation was meant to be looked upon as a native peoples motif? By this I mean, seeing House Elves as having their own perspective on life and the way they view their place on earth. Then Hermione's SPEW was an example of interlopers coming in and telling them the way they should think. Drawing a parallel to the way the missionaries that spread the "word" throughout the Pacific Islands. Possibly the English treatment of the aboriginal peoples of Australia, or the European treatment of Native Americans, though these don't ring quite so true for me. IOW, because House Elves are a different species, not human, maybe we were suppose to understand that it is arrogant of humans to think they know best how others should think. If this were the case, we do get somewhat of a resolution to this situation in DH. It happens in CH. 10 when Hermione says, "Kreacher doesn't think like that,..." She has finally come around to understand that House Elves don't think like humans do. As I said above, the problem with this reading is that word: "enslavement". If they were just different creatures with different perspectives on life and different life forces, this reading might have been stronger than it is. Just throwing it out there. Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 16:20:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:20:16 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177885 Hi guys, I am not asking here who and why recommended the books to you, where you initially heard about them, etc. I think this discussion would belong to OTC list, hehe. What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and reread :) I think I read the first four books soon after GoF was out, but I think first movie was already in the making. Since I read the books rather closely together and only then started to wait with all of you for OOP, it is hard to say what precisely made me go and buy second book and third and GoF right one after another, but I think that after I read the first book it was definitely sympathy for Harry and yeah, expectations for Snape, lol. Then I fell in love with the world, then as the world got darker and darker there was mostly characters that captured my heart. Sirius showed up in PoA. Oh boy. And of course I got more and more interested in Harry's journey and more and more interested in other characters. And as I am sure I mentioned - I TRIED to imagine the ending of the books and absolutely could not, I expected something so very cool and that also made me wait and wait and wait and squeee with delight and cry with joy or sadness after new book came out. Alla From simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 15:02:17 2007 From: simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com (simonsebastiansmith) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:02:17 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Intellect (was: Snape Reduced) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177886 > Mike: > > Goddlefrood pointed out 2 months ago, anyone that thought he was > the only one to discover the Room of Hidden Things in the face of > those mountains of evidence to the contrary, well... way beyond > simply an overactive ego, imo. Simon: I think the Room of Hidden Things could be argued in a different way, coincidental and stretching believablity but workable. When Voldemort found the Room, no one else knew of it. All of the stuff in there was old, from a century or two back. Voldemort would have seen little risk in depositing a Horcrux in a location no one ALIVE would have known about. And then other people began to find it and added stuff like the Fanged Frisbees. > Mike: > As for his ability to match wits with Dumbledore; it's not there, > imo. Dumbledore leads him around like a horse with a carrot in both > PS/SS and in OotP. Simon: I think Dumbledore WAS the same way. Sending an untested eleven year- old boy against a grown man with another entity in the back of his head isn't very sound thinking. Harry could have easily been killed before he had a chance to touch Quirell. Most of the rest of the time Dumbledore continues to fail to notice important things going on around him. The Chamber, Fake!Moody, Draco... He might have been good dealing with Voldemort because he knew him so well, but besides that he really wasn't all that bright. > Mike: > We've all noted his convoluted GoF plan. Side note: did anyone else > notice the the Tri-Wizard Cup was the only portkey that didn't > activate at a certain time? DD set up two in OotP that he set off > himself, counted down the departure time. But Barty Jr. couldn't > have done the same for the TWC, he couldn't see that far into the > maze, he told us so. Also, I'm pretty sure Voldemort didn't > activate the cup for Harry's return trip. ;) Simon: I think it's just more evidence of his skill- a portkey that goes off when touched. Why did it let Harry go back? Presumably because Voldemort would have wanted to go to Hogwarts, what w/ all the children to kidnap, Karkaroff, Snape, Crouch, Fudge, and Dumbledore. > Mike: > I would add LV's ridiculous thinking in OotP to the list of > tactical blunders. First off, he could get 12 DEs into the DoM > unnoticed, but he couldn't go himself to retrieve the prophesy? > Second, if his plan was to lure in Harry so he would get blamed - > fine, just sit next to the shelf and when you hear the boy come > into the Hall of Prophesies, snatch up the orb and skeedaddle. Simon: It's entirely possible that the Hall of Prophecy records who took the orb. Voldie didn't want there to be any chance of the Ministry suddenly going against him, and I bet that if the D. of Mysteries workers said Voldemort was back, the Ministry would have believed it. Also, he couldn't do it entirely undetected. The Order showed up. > Mike: > When your need to feed your superego outweighs your need to > complete a successful plan, you've lost the priviledge of being > considered intelligent, Tom. Simon: He didn't want any risks for himself. Too many things could have gone wrong. And he wouldn't have come if Bellatrix hadn't called him, telling him that Harry claimed the prophecy was destroyed. Otherwise, he would have sat back, waited, and let's face it- ten of those Death Eaters broke out of Azkaban once. They could have done it again. And even if they had been caught, Fudge would have denied anything to do with Voldemort, and the Death Eaters (on Voldie's orders) would have said it was an independent act. > Mike: > Do you get the idea that maybe we were suppose to be seeing some of > that vaunted Gaunt intellect coming out in Tom? I think it wasn't > just his soul that became dangerously unstable. Simon: Not until HBP. Using Draco as revenge and his utter failure of dealing with Harry in DH scream that his mind is unstable. Interestingly, at this point TWO Horcruxes have been destroyed, and as the Horcruxes go, the less stable Voldemort becomes. > Mike: > Because, I'm with you on this one Tiffany. LV scared the bejesus > out of me in PS/SS. Probably because he was this almost mythical > character that is suddenly manifest in front of Harry in a most > bizarrely magical and grotesque form. Simon: I also agree, Voldemort was pretty scary the first time through, even in CoS he was a remarkable figure. But after the dementors, it was kind of hard to be afraid of him, or even impressed. -Simon, closing the HP plotholes, one mistake at a time... From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 11 16:45:54 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:45:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Pleasant surprise Message-ID: <77281.3800.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177887 Since our discussions of Slytherin House tend to debate two positions mostly - whether Slytherins are really that rotten or whether JKR just painted them in such bad light that no child reader would be able to see them as a legitimate part of Hogwarts - I thought the following might be of interest for some listees. My daugher, 11, finished the 7th book yesterday and we talked a bit. She said she'd want to be in Slytherin (we've never had much discussions about Harry Potter before, she is nowhere near as obsessed as I am). So I asked why, and here is her reasoning verbatim: "They are cool and ambitious. They know what they want and just go after it. So what if there were some bad kids sorted there, doesn't mean there is something wrong with the whole house". So it seems even if JKR tried to give them bad PR, it didn't work completely. :-) In her mind Death Eaters and Slytherin are completely separate. Oh, and I asked where does she thinks Albus Severus is going to be sorted. The answer was: "Gryffindor, of course! He is a Potter, duh." So make what you will out of it. Irene From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 16:47:55 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:47:55 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177888 So, in response to another post discussing DD's and LV's intelligence and/or lack thereof...a question arose in my mind... Are any of us really that scared or intimdated by Voldemort? Personally, I find JKR's side villains much more frightening, capable, intelligent, and interesting. Next to Diary Riddle (who was quite evil), Barty Crouch, Umbridge, Bella Lestrange, and hell, even Wormtail...Voldemort just seems rather bumbling and procrastinating. I mean, damn, he could have killed Harry outright so many times. It's almost like he didn't really want to. I mean, by DH, I was really wondering what was so scary about this dude. He can't really do much without all his minions carrying out his orders, and it seems pretty easy to thwart them. So, anyone else find him scary? Or even threatening? Katie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 17:02:48 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:02:48 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177889 > >>zgirnius: > > I am totally comfortable with Hermione trotting off to the club, it > is Ron I have the problem with. If Hermione goes on to be a much > greater "success" in life than Ron, and he can't deal with that, > they are better off breaking up right then and there over the Slug > Club. He should find someone small and weak enough for his fragile > ego to handle, and Hermione should live as though the sky is the > limit. \climbs off feminist soapbox > Betsy Hp: It's funny (and it goes towards how differently we can each read things, I think) but I see Hermione being as feminist as a starlet sleeping with a producer to get a part here. (Which I suppose could be seen as a feminist move depending on how you want to spin it.) But that's because I think Hermione got into the club more on her "connections" than her talents. Slughorn was into Harry, he wanted Harry in his club, and Harry had praised Hermione. So Hermione was in. But I think that's because I really do see Slughorn and his club as being about "collecting" rather than being about helping the talented get ahead. Slughorn goes for what interests him: pretty boys of good breeding, and apparently spunky girls. (Though I think the girls are more of a way to lure in the pretty boys.) I think I got this idea from the way Slughorn salivated over Harry when they first met and how Dumbledore contrived to have them be alone together. The consequent chasing of Harry just added to that impression for me. And it totally fits with Slytherin being the more sexually aware house as well. (As an aside: Slughorn is totally a bigot, IMO. He's just the kind that either exclaims "He speaks so well!" about an educated black man, or shakes his head in amusement at the mathmatically proficient woman. The kind who'd go to a Jewish doctor or accountant but not invite them to the club-house. He's a pragmatic bigot. Which is apparently the best Slytherin can hope for.) Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 11 17:17:50 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:17:50 -0000 Subject: Prejudice/Slytherins/House Elves/Failed Messages in the Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > I believe the waters started to get muddy when JKR introduced the House > Elf issue, and later on, discussed goblins and centaurs. However, let > me focus on the House Elf issue, which I believe is the biggest failure > of the books. Introducing characters that are obviously powerfully > magical, are enslaved by all kinds of wizards, not only "bad" ones, and > are "happy" to be so enslaved was, IMO, a big mistake. At least to me, > a History graduate student, the parallels between African slavery and > House Elves were too great to be ignored. It is never ok to have people be > enslaved, whether they think they "like" it or not. Pippin: I think the point is that there's something more basic than freedom, and that's a sense of individual self-worth. In the history of Western thought, that is closely connected with the idea of the individual soul, which is of course central to the books. Kreacher and Winky cannot enjoy freedom because they have no sense of self-worth apart from service to their owners. Merope gives up on her magic and subsequently dies because she has no sense of self-worth apart from being desired by Tom Riddle Sr. Harry and Dobby, OTOH, have an inextinguishable awareness of their own worth, and so despite years of abuse they never feel as crushed as Winky or Merope do. The relationship between Christian ideals and the practice of slavery is fraught, and I'm no expert on it at all, but it has certainly been pointed out many times that Christian slaveholders ultimately undermined their position by teaching their slaves that they had individual and valuable souls. I think what we are to see in canon is that the House Elves can not be freed until their sense of individual self-worth is restored. Only then will freedom have any meaning for them. JKR did see it through as far as having her heroes recognize that the Elves don't think like they do. Harry understands that Kreacher behaved the way he did because he had been taught that he had no value apart from service to their owners. But Ron finally recognized that whether the Elves believe it or not, their lives are valuable for their own sake. That is an important step. Similarly, the Slytherin belief that human value lies in the purity of one's blood rather than in the ability to make positive choices has been diluted. The dementors are the only sentient beings in the books who are shown as wholly evil and without even the possibility of redemption. I do not think it is any accident that they leave the self with no memories except being powerless and afraid, and that if allowed they will destroy the soul itself. The one great change in the WW that does come about, though it is only implied in the books rather than stated, is that the dementors are finally recognized as the evil they are, and will no longer be ministry allies. So why do we see only small steps towards other changes in the books? IMO, because JKR wants social change that is orderly and incremental. She gave her reason in the first book, with the death of the unicorn: because when violence breaks out, the innocent are the first to suffer. Even in DH, it is Hedwig who dies first. Harry has always wanted to help individuals. He never thought he could change the world; it was Hermione who wanted to do that, and had to learn that politics is the art of the possible. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 17:28:31 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:28:31 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177891 > Alla: > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) zgirnius: I decided *not* to continue reading the books twice. First after reading PS/SS (which I finally decided to try on the theory that I would have liked it as a kid), and then after reading CoS (on the theory that maybe it just got off to a bad start). I liked some of the characters, some of the humor, and thought the idea of the world was pretty cool, but it did not really grip me. I went ahead and read PoA after hearing good things about the movie, and *that* was when I decided I needed to go hunt down a copy of GoF. The prophecy at the end, and then Peter running away, made me suspect that, rather than being seven cute little episodes of Harry neatly foiling a plan inside of a school year like the first two, this was actually going to be a series of books in which sweeping, large-scale, interesting things were going to happen and Harry would just happen to be at the center of them. I also loved the book as a standalone far more than the first two. The Snape and Marauder backstory, the fabulous Peter is Scabbers twist, and the extended time-travel sequence were just huge amounts of fun, in my opinion. GoF (already available then) confirmed this suspicion, and I was hooked. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 11 17:51:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:51:17 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177892 > zgirnius: > I agree with Mike - Sluggie does not have an obligation to further > everyone's success to the same degree during his free time, so I do > not have a problem with the way he treats Ron. Magpie: For me, I don't think it's an issue of what he does in his "free time." It's not like he's a teacher who just happens to recruit for Harvard on the side. He can certainly associate with whom he wants outside of class, and nobody's entitled to his personal help in getting jobs outside of school. (Though as I've said, I think it's completely inaccurate to say he's cultivating talent in his spare time. A large part of his hobby is about helping the already well- connected, whether or not they are the best people for the job.) But the Slug Club is central the classroom experience in Slughorn's class. There's no reason for any kid in the class to be much aware of it, yet it's at the bottom of everything--it's a joke in the way he treats everyone. I have no problem with Ron not being in the club. I have a problem with the way Slughorn treats Ron. I don't see why anybody would be okay with being on the receiving end of that kind of behavior, for instance by having the guy make it clear every time they meet that while he's actually brilliant at remembering names, that only counts for people whose names are worth remembering. And I'd think Slughorn's behavior would seriously backfire on him more than once. The author shows Slughorn being transparent about judging people as worthless to him and treating them as such. Whether or not one uses the word racism, being treated as nothing is an experience described by real life people in just these kinds of situations. zgirnis: > I am totally comfortable with Hermione trotting off to the club, it > is Ron I have the problem with. If Hermione goes on to be a much > greater "success" in life than Ron, and he can't deal with that, they > are better off breaking up right then and there over the Slug Club. > He should find someone small and weak enough for his fragile ego to > handle, and Hermione should live as though the sky is the limit. > \climbs off feminist soapbox > > (Aside: I think Ron CAN handle it, he's had a lot of practise being > Harry's best friend and the youngest of the variously accomplished > and outstanding male Weasleys. I think Hermione needs to let Ron know > that she loves and admires him for traits other than worldly success. > We see some indication of both in DH). Magpie: Yeah, I agree. I don't really think Ron has any issues at all with Hermione being more successful. If he did, why on earth would he like Hermione to begin with? She's always been the superstar while he was normal. He even rejects the relationship where the girl looks up to him. However, I also can't blame him for reacting badly to being dissed by Slughorn in front of her etc, and if that club created bad blood between them I don't think it would have to come from Ron being entirely unreasonable. Personally, I didn't think Hermione came out very well re: the Slug Club. I thought she was a sucker for it because she loves praise and being told that she's special, myself. The fact that as far as I was concerned Slughorn had introduced himself by making clear that he does look down on Muggleborns as inferior, but prides himself on cases like Hermione who are the exceptions, made me feel that even more. Did she know she was a token Muggle-born? I don't know. It's a bit complicated since Muggle-borns by definition are going to be far less aware of the prejudice against them than anyone else. From what I've read in the books, Hermione was raised as basically part of a non-minority group, and her experience in the Wizarding World has been no different. She doesn't identify as a minority at all. It's only in DH that she's in a bad position due to her parents being Muggles, and then that ends and she goes back to her proper position as part of the elite of her world. (And in case it seems like I forgot, I know she's been called Mudblood by Draco and was once called a Muggle in an angry letter, but she's not experiencing institutionalized discrimination.) I assume the best attitude was supposed to be the one held by Harry and Ginny, who thought the Club was ridiculous and rejected it, while being the most sought-after people. Though of course that makes it a lot easier to reject it--both of them got adulation elsewhere. Hermione's more insecure to begin with. (Not that Hermione needed the Club so much either--she's bff with Harry Potter.) -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 18:25:38 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:25:38 -0000 Subject: Prejudice/Slytherins/House Elves/Failed Messages in the Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177893 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > > > > I believe the waters started to get muddy when JKR introduced the House > > Elf issue, and later on, discussed goblins and centaurs. However, let > > me focus on the House Elf issue, which I believe is the biggest failure > > of the books. Introducing characters that are obviously powerfully > > magical, are enslaved by all kinds of wizards, not only "bad" ones, and > > are "happy" to be so enslaved was, IMO, a big mistake. At least to me, > > a History graduate student, the parallels between African slavery and > > House Elves were too great to be ignored. > > It is never ok to have people be > > enslaved, whether they think they "like" it or not. > > Pippin: > I think the point is that there's something more basic than freedom, > and that's a sense of individual self-worth. In the history of Western > thought, that is closely connected with the idea of the individual soul, > which is of course central to the books. > > Kreacher and Winky cannot enjoy freedom because they have no sense > of self-worth apart from service to their owners. Merope gives up on > her magic and subsequently dies because she has no sense of self- worth > apart from being desired by Tom Riddle Sr. > > Harry and Dobby, OTOH, have an inextinguishable awareness of their > own worth, and so despite years of abuse they never feel as crushed as > Winky or Merope do. <<>> ***Katie Replying: Well, I agree with you and then I don't. : ) I agree that the idea of self-worth is deeply ingrained in the books and I think your analysis of why Harry and Dobby succeed where others don't is spot on. However, I am going to harken back to Mike's response to this post, and suggest that part of the problem is the whole use of the word/concept "enslavement". That is an incredibly specific term, that had hundreds of years of history and connotation attached to it, and it cannot be tossed around lightly while exploring ideas about self-worth. Had JKR chosen a different term, as Mike suggested, "enchantment", or some other term that had less to do with the RW, I might feel differently. However, she chose that term, and all that comes with it, and she also made House-Elves powerful and loyal creatures that obviously deserve freedom and don't need help or protection from wizards. She also very specifically put in points about House Elf enslavement being wrong, and then never concluded that with anything about them gaining rights or freedoms. For me, it was just a very ill-conceived and ill-executed storyline about a very important and serious topic. > Harry has always wanted to help individuals. He never thought > he could change the world; it was Hermione who wanted to do > that, and had to learn that politics is the art of the possible. > > Pippin > ***Katie replying: I agree that Harry has never been the save the world type...in his own mind. But looking at his actions, he has always wanted to help, to take action, to protect the WW (which is the only place he has ever felt accepted and loved). He has a huge personal stake in saving the world from Voldemort, that is true, but the facts are that he is saving the world. Hermione may have a different outlook, but the fact is that all three of them are busy saving the world from the age of 11. And JKR led us to believe that all these other things were wrapped up in the defeat of Voldemort. She made specific connections between Elf Rights, half-breed rights, and the treatment of magical non-human creatures, with the downfall of Voldemort. And then the world didn't change. I understand she wanted to make things realistic...but I really wish she had put the info she gave us in those post-DH interviews in the book. I would have been much more interested in the overhaul of the MoM and HRH's place in that, than in the snogging of Teddy Lupin and Draco's kid's name. She just left a lot of these (imo) important storylines about prejudice, bigotry, freedom, and equality dangling. And those were some of my favorite things about the books. For me, it was a big disappointment. Katie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 18:38:17 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:38:17 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I am not asking here who and why recommended the books to you, where > you initially heard about them, etc. I think this discussion would > belong to OTC list, hehe. > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) <<>> > Alla ***Katie: I was hooked from page one of PS/SS. HOOKED. I bought the book on a whim on vacation and proceeded to stay up all night reading while my then-boyfriend(now hubby), and our friends partied in the next room. I think what hooked me was the magic of the WW. I loved all the magical alternatives for things, and I loved the idea of Muggles not really noticing magical things because they just can't think "outside the box", I loved the owls and the brooms and Quidditch and the Forbidden Forest...it brought back the fairy tale part of my soul. It made me feel like a little kid again(I was 20 when I picked up PS/SS), and that was magical to me. Later on, after PoA, I began really loving HRH, and the characters began to be really important to me. Neville, Luna, Fred and George, Sirius...these people were so real to me, I felt like I could hear their individual voices as I read. They became old friends. As for rereading the books, I do that at least once a year. I have reread GoF and HBP the most, but I think OotP is probably my favorite book because Umbridge is my favorite villain. The books are like old friends now, and I fall into them like falling into a comfy chair. I find fault in them, mistakes and things I don't like, but like old friends, I accept their faults because I love them so much, it doesn't matter. Katie From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 11 17:29:27 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:27 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177895 > Katie: > So, in response to another post discussing DD's and LV's > intelligence and/or lack thereof...a question arose in my mind... > > Are any of us really that scared or intimdated by Voldemort? Tiffany: I was scared by him in SS, esp. his knowledge of the magical arts & black arts, but by the time DH came out I wasn't too impressed with him as a whole. I still admire & respect his knowledge of the magical arts, but that only gets you so far as a villian. > Katie: > Personally, I find JKR's side villains much more frightening, > capable, intelligent, and interesting. Next to Diary Riddle (who > was quite evil), Barty Crouch, Umbridge, Bella Lestrange, and hell, > even Wormtail...Voldemort just seems rather bumbling and > procrastinating. I mean, damn, he could have killed Harry outright > so many times. It's almost like he didn't really want to. Tiffany: I agree, his minions were almost as comptent as he was, if not more so at times. I think LV was suffering from a case of a giant-sized ego & a desire for a "today Hogwarts, tomorrow the world" type of feat typical of many villians, by the time I was reading DH. I know every good villian needs a faithful minion to do his dirty work, but if you're lacking in basic sense, it's tough to keep them around also, IMO. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 11 19:12:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:12:01 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177896 Katie: > Are any of us really that scared or intimdated by Voldemort? Ceridwen: If you read what's said and implied about him, he's a chilling villain. The way he killed Snape was so off-handed: "Nothing personal, buddy, ciao!" - actually showed what was only dimly described. I was never brought to the edge where I could see him in the text as anything other than someone who picked competent people and hornswoggled them into becoming minions. He knew a few decent spells, Unforgivables, and wasn't afraid to use them. Wanting to keep their lives and some sort of bodily comfort, they followed. Karkarov was one who suffered death for leaving, and Sirius believed his brother had died for the same reason. We know the threats weren't idle. I don't think I was shown the potential scope of Voldemort's villainy, except for a few glimpses. I understood, and sometimes I could see around the edges, but until DH (Charity Burbage, Snape), I didn't see much of LV in action. By then, I had formed a different opinion of him and wasn't too impressed. Ceridwen. From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 19:07:21 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:07:21 -0000 Subject: 3 questions about The Deathly Hallows Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177897 Q. 1.In it, it describes the life and lies of Dumbledore, Is Ms. Rowling trying to show the Mr. Dumbledore was not perfect or was she trying to show all the mistakes he had done and did not realize them til it was too late, along the lines you learn from your mistakes. Q.2. We see the full reaches of Lord Voldemort's power. Technically did he use peoples fear of his name or the knowledge that Harry was not scared of his name to track down those who were against him, and to find Harry? Q.3. When Harry went to the Godric Hollow to Lily and James's gravesite, and he found out it was yet another thing that Dumbledore left out, do you feel it was what drove him to find out about the Horcruxes or to find out who he Harry really was? Sorry so long and would love to hear your thoughts on these Questions. From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 19:15:32 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:15:32 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > zgirnius: > > I agree with Mike - Sluggie does not have an obligation to further > > everyone's success to the same degree during his free time, so I > > do not have a problem with the way he treats Ron. > Magpie: > For me, I don't think it's an issue of what he does in his "free > time." It's not like he's a teacher who just happens to recruit for > Harvard on the side. He can certainly associate with whom he wants > outside of class, and nobody's entitled to his personal help in > getting jobs outside of school. (Though as I've said, I think it's > completely inaccurate to say he's cultivating talent in his spare > time. A large part of his hobby is about helping the already well- > connected, whether or not they are the best people for the job.) To be realistic zgirnius, and Magpie, Slugclub was all about what they could do for him before he would do for them. He helped only those he knew he could use on a further date to help himself. He chose to ignore Ron because his father or grandfather were happy with what they did and did not have further ambitions to go on farther. So what would helping Ron do to further his own expanding resume. So he ignored Ron. But was enthralled with Harry and some of the others becasue of their names. Ginny was only invited becasue she had some real power and so in his eyes had potential, now had he seen Ron in action when it mattered the most he might have changed his mind. johnson_fan4rvre48 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 19:42:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:42:39 -0000 Subject: Likeable Slughorn (was: Villain!Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177899 > Betsy Hp: > But that's because I think Hermione got into the club more on > her "connections" than her talents. Slughorn was into Harry, he > wanted Harry in his club, and Harry had praised Hermione. So > Hermione was in. zgirnius: I don't buy it. Harry has two best friends. Sluggie picked the Muggle- born one over the pureblood. Why? Because she is as talented as Harry says she is, in my opinion. She did not *do* anything to get in. Unless you count answering every question in class correctly and being second only to Snape (oh, I mean Harry) in potionsmaking. WHich she would have done regardless. BatsyHP: > But I think that's because I really do see Slughorn and his club as > being about "collecting" rather than being about helping the talented > get ahead. zgirnius: It's about both. The talented who get ahead are worthy additions to his collection. If he did not help them, they would feel no reciprocal obligation to send him nice presents. > BetsyHP: > Slughorn goes for what interests him: pretty boys of good > breeding, and apparently spunky girls. (Though I think the girls are > more of a way to lure in the pretty boys.) zgirnius: I disagree. First, we know his patronage of Muggleborns extends to males - he mentions at least one as an example. And his patronage of males extends to the not-so-pretty. Is Cormac? I think he is there because he goes on hunting trips with Scrimgeour. And the same applies to females. I very much doubt a Beater on the Holyhead Harpies has much going for her in the looks department. She has to be built like Millicent Bullstrode, to succeed in her profession. > BetsyHP: > The kind who'd go to a Jewish doctor or accountant but not > invite them to the club-house. He's a pragmatic bigot. Which is > apparently the best Slytherin can hope for.) zgirnius: There's only one problem I see with this idea. He *does* invite them to the clubhouse. > Magpie: > But the Slug Club is central the classroom experience in Slughorn's > class. There's no reason for any kid in the class to be much aware > of it, yet it's at the bottom of everything--it's a joke in the way > he treats everyone. zgirnius: I was not glowing about Sluggie as a teacher. I merely said that at a school which retains the likes of Binns, Trelawney, and Hagrid as teachers for years, I would not point out Sluggie's teaching as a particular problem - there is far worse out there among his colleagues. He seems, at least, to know the material and present it in a fashion that has some appeal to his students. > Magpie: > I have no problem with Ron not being in the > club. I have a problem with the way Slughorn treats Ron. zgirnius: So do I. Ron is fully justified in disliking Sluggie. > magpie: > And I'd think Slughorn's behavior would seriously > backfire on him more than once. The author shows Slughorn being > transparent about judging people as worthless to him and treating > them as such. Whether or not one uses the word racism, being treated > as nothing is an experience described by real life people in just > these kinds of situations. zgirnius: Well, that's why it is not racism. The 'racism' of which he is accused is one which asserts the superiority of Purebloods, yet Slughorn treats Ronald Weasley as worthless, and recruits Hermione, the Muggle-born. It's not just because she is Harry's BFF either. Ron is also Harry's BFF, yet Sluggie cannot be bothered to remember his name. The difference seems obvious to me: Hermione is indeed the smartest witch of her year. I would expect it to backfire on him myself. In fact, I would guess it may have in the past. He just doesn't talk about it to students. "Join my club! Arthur Weasley, Head of the Muggle Relations Department at the Ministry, despises me" is not a selling point. (I seem to recall Molly made some comment about Sluggie in HBP - I may be misremembering). > Magpie: > Personally, I didn't think Hermione came out very well re: the Slug > Club. I thought she was a sucker for it because she loves praise and > being told that she's special, myself. zgirnius: If she had beem shown doing something she would not otherwise have done, 'selling out' in some way to be in the club, I would agree. She is not, so I have no problem with her being in it. Both for the possible long-term advantages, and the short-term gratification of feeling appreciated. > Magpie: > The fact that as far as I was > concerned Slughorn had introduced himself by making clear that he > does look down on Muggleborns as inferior, but prides himself on > cases like Hermione who are the exceptions, made me feel that even > more. Did she know she was a token Muggle-born? zgirnius: I do not believe she was the token Muggle-born. I believe that Sluggie will take any talented Muggle-born he feels has the drive and personality to succeed. In addition to Hermione and Lily, he also mentored the Head of the Goblin Liaison Office in the Ministry, who is a talented Muggle-born wizard (in Sluggie's opinion, we never meet the man). Nor do I have any problem with *being* the token Muggle-born. As I graduated from UCLA, I was interviewed for a tenure-track position in the Math Department of the University of Connecticut. You see, their only female professor was retiring, so they brought in the four best candidates they could find (naturally *wink*), all of whom happened to be female. Had I been offered teh position, I would certainly have taken it. > Magpie: > I assume the best attitude was supposed to be the one held by Harry > and Ginny, who thought the Club was ridiculous and rejected it, > while being the most sought-after people. Though of course that > makes it a lot easier to reject it--both of them got adulation > elsewhere. Hermione's more insecure to begin with. (Not that > Hermione needed the Club so much either--she's bff with Harry > Potter.) zgirnius: I agree that Rowling likely regards Harry's attitude as superior. I don't. I think that a person who takes advantage of an opportunity like that one without being corrupted by it is doing absolutely nothing wrong. And I did not see Hermione doing anything wrong to stay in the club. If she indeed intended Harry and Ginny's attitude to seem heroic rather that merely good (and I am not convinced she did) then yes, it fell flat precisely for the reasons you name. Neither of them got anything out of Sluggie's interest anyway. Hermione, on the other hand, got things she could not get by being Harry's BFF alone. First, during HBP the connection between being Harry's BFF and worldly success was less than clear, and second, she believed (and I think correctly) that she was receiving this recognition in part due to her own talents, not merely because of Harry. Which is something she does, as you say, like. From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 20:00:57 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:00:57 -0000 Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177900 They alluded to fact that the Minister of Magic, Fudge, scared that Dumbledore is there to overthrow him and become Minister of Magic. I do not think that is all though. Harry asked if they thought he could be being cursed especially when he was meeting regularly with Lucius and other known death eaters. Dumbledore said he doubted it but I'm not so sure. With so much going on and Voldemort being back it is hard to be really sure of anything. johnson_fan4evre48 From peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 20:38:25 2007 From: peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com (patricia bindrim) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] 3 questions about The Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <504880.38375.qm@web90611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177901 --- johnson_fan4evre48 wrote: > Q. 1.In it, it describes the life and lies of > Dumbledore, Is Ms. Rowling > trying to show the Mr. Dumbledore was not perfect or > was she trying to > show all the mistakes he had done and did not > realize them til it was > too late, along the lines you learn from your > mistakes. > > Q.2. We see the full reaches of Lord Voldemort's > power. Technically did > he use peoples fear of his name or the knowledge > that Harry was not > scared of his name to track down those who were > against him, and to find > Harry? > > Q.3. When Harry went to the Godric Hollow to Lily > and James's > gravesite, and he found out it was yet another thing > that Dumbledore > left out, do you feel it was what drove him to find > out about the > Horcruxes or to find out who he Harry really was? peppermintpattie: In my opinion to Q. 1, I think Dumbledore was not perfect and did not want to burden Harry with all details of Dumbledores life. My answer to Q. 2, Yes I believe Voldemort used his power and other people's fear of him to help track down Harry and others who oppose him. My answer to Q. 3, In my opinion when Harry realized that Dumbledore did not tell everything about where he came from, he was not deceiving Harry with non important stuff but to help Harry with more inportant information that will be helpful in defeating Voldemort. From dreadr at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 22:35:19 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:35:19 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177902 > > Alla: > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was > > there any event, character, just the world in general that made > > you decide - oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, > > read and reread and reread :) > <<>> I didn't read the first book until after I saw the movie. I had no desire to read them, even though my daughter told me I was really missing something. I went straight to Target and bought the first three books. I was HOOKED! For me, once you got past the superficial trappings (which admittedly, I didn't want to), this was the story of a child who has been neglected and abused who finds out he is special. I came to love the characters. (okay, I tolerated a number and despised a few.) I cheered Harry's victories, sufferered his angst with him, laughed and cried with him. The first time he kissed Ginny I felt like I was sixteen and had just been kissed for the first time. I savored Fred and George and felt like my sons were teens again with all their friends piled into the house relating their latest antics and cried when Fred died. I cheered Molly! (You'd better believe it!! I daresay, that most of us mothers out there identified completely with her. I also loved it all, faults and all and tend to not over- analyze it because I accept as it is. It is after all Jo's work and she had the right to write it the way she chose. I personally am glad she wrote it the way she did, and even if I weren't, I would not presume to criticize a women who rose from complete obscurity to dominating the publishing industry. I loved all of it but for me it was always about Harry and the kids and all the other lovable and not-so lovable people who inhabit the WW. One of the things I always loved was that I felt the world was really there if I could only find the right door (harder to do in the US.) I think I'll go look now. Enjoy. Debbie From simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 23:28:22 2007 From: simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com (simonsebastiansmith) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:28:22 -0000 Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177903 > JohnsonFan: > > Harry asked if they thought Fudge could be being cursed especially > when he was meeting regularly with Lucius and other known death > eaters. Dumbledore said he doubted it but I'm not so sure. With so > much going on and Voldemort being back it is hard to be really sure > of anything. Simon: I don't really agree; primarily because of the fact that Fudge acted the role of power-hungry paranoid politician perfectly, especially during the scene when Dumbledore leaves. Also against the idea that he was being cursed is that when Fudge saw Voldemort really was back he accepted it instead of continuing to deny it. But it certainly does make an interesting theory. -Simon the HP Encyclopedia From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 00:04:03 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:04:03 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177904 > Simon (snipped): > I think the Room of Hidden Things could be argued in a > different way, coincidental and stretching believablity > but workable. Voldemort would have seen little risk in > depositing a Horcrux in a location no one ALIVE would > have known about. And then other people began to find > it and added stuff like the Fanged Frisbees. Goddlefrood: This seems to overlook what Deathly Hallows itself would tell anyone. When Voldemort is thinking of the hiding place for the tiara Horcrux he clearly believes he is the ONLY person to have ever found the RoR. How he could possibly believe that given the amount of junk in there is unbelievable, or it was to me. However, it occurs to me that this particular idiocy could be explained by the simple expedient of postulating, as I won't but maybe others would like to, that when Tom discovered the RoR he had required an EMPTY room and he got one. To anyone but him it would seem full of detritus, although to him it would appear empty. It's far-fetched, workable though. Not that I'm one to fill plot holes, this isn't one anyway; it's just that LV is thicker than the thickest thing ever to paraphrase a certain Betelgusan. Goddlefrood, who reckons LV would hardly challenge an amoeba intellectually. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 11 23:54:00 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:54:00 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177905 Alla: What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and reread :) Tiffany: I was hooked on the Pottermania craze ever since SS came out in 1997 & have read all 7 books at least once, if not more. I was just in awe of the world of Hogwarts & all the themes & elements there. I wasn't big into fantasy pre-HP, but after reading the 1st chapter of SS my fantasy book collection took off like a rocket. I really don't have any favorite characters, but I followed everything in the books & made note of anything that I thought deserved being re-read. I've always felt the most kinship to the Ravenclaw house because of how much it's like myself, but I focus better on the big picture than the little details when compared with some characters there. I finished up DH in only 3 weeks, which is almost a record pace for me because I like to take my time & make sure I've fully absorbed it all in before reading on. However, I was very pleased with all 7 of the books & have discussed the canon with others I've met, mainly at HP conventions here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 12 01:56:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:56:29 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177906 > Goddlefrood: > > This seems to overlook what Deathly Hallows itself would tell > anyone. When Voldemort is thinking of the hiding place for the > tiara Horcrux he clearly believes he is the ONLY person to have > ever found the RoR. How he could possibly believe that given > the amount of junk in there is unbelievable, or it was to me. Pippin: It's simple, IMO. He thought all the stuff in there was *lost*. Voldemort really is brilliant, at least he was able to learn and use a great deal of advanced magic and impress all his teachers with his intelligence. But his disdain for others makes his grip on reality uncertain -- it doesn't occur to him that he could use a reality check once in a while. Brilliance, IOW, is not the same as common sense. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 03:08:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:08:11 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177907 > > Goddlefrood: > > This seems to overlook what Deathly Hallows itself would tell > > anyone. When Voldemort is thinking of the hiding place for the > > tiara Horcrux he clearly believes he is the ONLY person to have > > ever found the RoR. How he could possibly believe that given > > the amount of junk in there is unbelievable, or it was to me. > Pippin: > It's simple, IMO. He thought all the stuff in there was *lost*. Goddlefrood: One way of spinning it, not consistent with canon, but possible. > Pippin: > Voldemort really is brilliant, > Brilliance, IOW, is not the same as common sense. Goddlefrood: Avoiding relaity as I am today, and enjoying what may be my last day of freedom (don't ask), I'd like to take a shortish look at this brilliant man. In PS he had the superb idea of obtaining the Philosopher's Stone so that he could come back. When he actually *did* come back he needed a loyal servant, the bones of his father and the blood of an enemy. Perhaps he also needed the sustenance provided by Nagini's milk. However, all those things were available to him in PS. Quirrell was a loyal servant, notwithstanding that he was pursuing power (or so he implied during the course of the Mirror of Erised sequence under the school). Harry was already his enemy, and a much younger and more naive one than he became in GoF. The bones of his father were in the graveyard at Little Hangleton. He *could* have regained a body then and returned in PS, but he chose to rely on unicorn's blood and the eventual acquisition of the stone. In my opinion you don't need too much common sense to figure that one out. This brilliant man didn't manage to do it, but delayed his return by three more years, two of which he spent back in Albania (the diary revenant was a part of LV but not the part that would become the deformed foetal organism). Turning to GoF, LV had the brilliant idea of taking the entire school year to bring Harry to him so that he could be revived. IF, and that's a big if, he had not gone to such tremendous pains to bring Harry to him then I have little doubt that he could certainly have got hold of Harry and returned earlier, Wormtail having rejoined him shortly after the end of year three. Once he did return to corporeal form the first thing he does is gloat over Harry and then proceed to release him so that he can duel with Harry to show his Death Eaters that Harry had no real skill to match LV, not terribly bright either, rather more arrogance and grandstanding. It is these latter traits that, in my view, we were to ascribe to LV and which would have led to the conclusion that he *thought* no one else had ever discovered the RoR. Nothing to do with him thinking that the items in the room were lost. That, in my interpretation, is unlikely because even lost things have to be moved by someone, unless of course he thought they all got there by magic ;-) In OotP he had eventually to get Harry to the prophecy hall because only either he or Harry could touch the orb. LV must necessarily have known that *he* could get the orb. Because the various Death Eaters, many of whom had at the point of entry to the MoM recently escaped from Azkaban, can anyone seriously suggest that LV couldn't have got in himself? Other than himself (and remember his return was officially denied by the Ministy at that point) these escaped Death eaters would have been the most wanted witches and wizards in the WW. Yet they can, with impugnity, wander into the MoM and gain access to the prophecy hall without raising any alarms anywhere. LV could also have done, but then, naturally, OotP would have been a short book or entirely about the six-gilled shark, and who would have liked that?. Finally, in Deathly Hallows he makes the mistake of thinking that, with Dumbledore out of the way, he would have a clear run at becoming the supreme ruler of wizarding Britain and most likely later the world (oh, the ideas of these super- villains). He never thought once he had returned to a body to check his Horcruxes, and there'll be a little more on them shortly. That goes to his arrogance again, in that he couldn't even begin to imagine that anyone ever discovered he was using Horcruxes to anchor him to the world. Once he returned, and there being few ways that we are aware of of doing so, if he were so brilliant he'd surely at least contemplate that someone would know, or at any rate guess, that he had used Horcruxes. As it turns out Horcruxes are easy enough to destroy, it was only some misdirection from the auther through the medium of DD that led us to believe that they would be tough to get rid of. When it became clear to me that Horcruxes could be destroyed without too much real trouble, always assuming there's a handy dead basilisk nearby or a Gryffindor in need of *that* sword, I further doubted LV's intelligence. Brilliant? Sorry, far from it, just a lame brain, IMO. Goddlefrood From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 03:54:49 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:54:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0710112054o45a7ea66w17088b3c3add4af2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177908 I was hooked from my first reading of SS. Hands down. If I had found the latter books lacking I would have quit reading them. There are simply too many books written that I do enjoy reading for me to use my reading time on something I don't enjoy. For example: I do not read the Lemony Snicket books. Tried the first one, hated it. I don't read Philip Pullman. Tried it. Didn't like. Dean Koontz is my favorite writer, but I won't touch the Odd Thomas books with a ten foot pole. Tried Anne Rice. Didn't work for me. But HP did. Just like Susan Cooper's books, TA Barron's books, Jim Butcher's, and nearly all of Koontz's stuff. Along with many others! Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 05:31:59 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:31:59 -0000 Subject: C.R.O.N.I.E.S. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177909 > Tiffany: > I know every good villian needs a faithful minion to do his dirty > work, but if you're lacking in basic sense, it's tough to keep them > around also. > ************************************************************* Out of work now that the most recent Dark Lord has been vanquished? Dissatisfied with the lack of aggression outlets in your present position? Haven't Imperiused anyone in ages? Curseright's Recruitment Of Ne'erdowells - Interesting Employmnet Service is looking to place just your type. We are a full service recruiting agency, cradle to grave (possibly yours, we make no guarantees). We realize that the demise of Lord Thingy has left a void in the market for those hard to place people like you. That's where we come in. Our clientelle appreciates a good Cruciatus Curse, cast like you really meant it. And they never underestimate the wizard that has, er, influence over the weak minded. Some of our success stories: Mr. Garfield Goyle, recently of the Muggle Terrorizing wing, DE Inc. We found Gar a job as a Bludger Utilization Training Tactician. He gets to aim stinging spells at bludgers all day long. And when the bludger proves to be inadequate, Gar gets to blow them up, ahh I mean recycle them. Gar Golye is sitting pretty as the head B.U.T.T. Mr. Watkins Nott, newly released from Azkaban, umm recently a patron of the DE retraining facility. We got Wat a position with Borgin's Individual Garnishments as a Disposer Of Personal Excesses. He now specializes in Imperiusing... I mean influencing folks to dispose of their unneeded personal possessions. Wat Nott is proud to be a B.I.G. D.O.P.E.! Mr. Sandoval Crabbe, fresh off his job as a Relocation Umpire of Mudblood Personal. We placed Sand with Karkaroff's Never Ending Enterprises as a Jewelry Enhancement and Return Collector. Now he finds enjoyment Cursing, umm enchanting jewelry for selected clientelle. Which allows his company to ransack, no I meant effect a judicious return of said baubles and any sister jewelry the client won't be needing any more. You may have heard of this line of work, Mr. Borgin acquired a certain opal necklace used in this endeavor. The great thing about it is like the name says, it's the gift that's never ending, even with the company's founder in permanent haitus. We here at C.R.O.N.I.E.S. are pleased with the effort Sand Crabbe has put forth as a K.N.E.E. J.E.R.C. So don't delay, send in your Resume to CRONIES today. We're sure we can find a position that suits your unique talents. ************************************************************* No Death Eaters were harmed in the production of this post. Mike From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 12 06:39:37 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:39:37 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I am not asking here who and why recommended the books to you, where > you initially heard about them, etc. I think this discussion would > belong to OTC list, hehe. > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) Geoff: I came to the Potterverse from a background of reading LOTR, the Narnia books and Alan Garner's Brisingamen duo (and also Star Trek!) - with a love of escapist but well-constructed fantasy worlds - but came late after allowing myself to be influenced by some members of my church without really investigating for myself.. I first 'met' Harry via the COS film round about 11/02 when it came on general UK release and, in the same week, saw PS on Sky Box Office. As a result, I rapidly bought the four books which were then available andjoined this illustrious mob in July '03 just after OOTP was released. If a book or series 'grabs' me, than I hang in to see what will happen. Although I was ultimately disappointed by HBP I couldn't walk away from the Potterverse having invested a lot of time in it one way and another. I also needed to be around to make sure that Harry lived. :-) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 10:09:37 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:09:37 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177911 Goddlefrood: *(snip)* > However, it occurs to me that this particular idiocy could be > explained by the simple expedient of postulating, as I won't > but maybe others would like to, that when Tom discovered the > RoR he had required an EMPTY room and he got one. To anyone > but him it would seem full of detritus, although to him it > would appear empty. Ceridwen: But then, wouldn't the tiara have appeared to have been in a room all by itself? When the DA, and its radical component in DH, needs a room, it shows up and is furnished by what they need. Those trappings don't switch over to the Room of Hidden Things function when someone else, like Trelawney, needs to hide something, or at least it was never mentioned that they do. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 12 10:33:18 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:33:18 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > We've all noted his convoluted GoF plan. Side note: did anyone else > notice the the Tri-Wizard Cup was the only portkey that didn't > activate at a certain time? DD set up two in OotP that he set off > himself, counted down the departure time. But Barty Jr. couldn't have > done the same for the TWC, he couldn't see that far into the maze, he > told us so. Also, I'm pretty sure Voldemort didn't activate the cup > for Harry's return trip. ;) Geoff: We had a discussion on the Triwizard Cup as a Portkey a long time ago. We know that Crouch!Moody placed it in the maze and made it into a Portkey: '"I offered to carry the Triwizard Cup into the maze before dinner," whispered Barty Crouch. "Turned it into a Portkey. My master's plan worked. He is returned to power and I will be honoured by him beyond the dreams of wizards."' (GOF "Veritaserum" p.600 UK edition) Now, it couldn't be preset for time because no one knew how long the Task would take. Why have a return time set on to the stadium built in? Our thinking at the time was that Voldemort would return Harry's dead body to full view of the spectators so that they would know that he had defeated Harry. Mike: > I would add LV's ridiculous thinking in OotP to the list of tactical > blunders. First off, he could get 12 DEs into the DoM unnoticed, but > he couldn't go himself to retrieve the prophesy? Second, if his plan > was to lure in Harry so he would get blamed - fine, just sit next to > the shelf and when you hear the boy come into the Hall of Prophesies, > snatch up the orb and skeedaddle. There are several ways in and out > of that room, and I'd imagine Voldemort could figure out how to > become invisible to effect his escape if he needed to do that. Geoff: With reference to the Department of Mysteries, I'm not sure that Voldemort's thinking is a ridiculous as you suggest. He got his Death Eaters in to capture the orb from Harry and his friends because Harry had to be the one to take the prophecy: '"He thought natural curiosity would make you want to hear the exact wording..." "Did he?" said Harry.... ..."So he wanted me to come and get it, did he? Why?" "Why?" Malfoy sounded incredulously delighted. "Because the only people who are permitted to retrieve a prophecy from the Department of Mysteries, Potter, are those about whom it was made, as the Dark Lord discovered when he attempted to use others to steal it for him."' (OOTP "Beyond the Veil" p.693 UK edition) He didn't come himself initially because he wanted the Ministry to continue holding to their view that he had not returned and keep up their smear campaign against Harry and Dumbledore. I don't think there was any aim to get Harry 'blamed'. He was already being rubbished enough by the Prophet. The aim was to get the prophecy, period. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 12 12:29:37 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:29:37 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177913 > Alla: > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) Potioncat: I started reading the books about the time the first movie was being hyped. I was well into SS/PS when someone slipped the information that Snape wasn't the bad guy. (over breakfast at the Slytherin table IIRC) >From that moment on, I was trying to determine who "was" the bad guy and what was Snape up to? From then on the book titles might as well have been "HP and the ______ and What Snape Did About It". The books entertained on so many levels. I was enchanted by the word play, by old folklore made new, by something inportant in this book that was barely mentioned in the last book. I liked the tricks that JKR played on the readers. I felt so smart when I got a pun or joke right away, but equally amused when I caught on to it later. It was loads of fun. That is why I'll read JKR's next book. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 12:54:55 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:54:55 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177914 Alla: > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > > reread :) > > Potioncat: > I started reading the books about the time the first movie was being > hyped. Ceridwen: I started reading the books right before SS the Movie came out. I was going to take the youngest to see it, and thought she should read the book first, not just to have an idea of what was going on, but to get the actual story, knowing how H'wood sometimes changes things. I started reading it to her. If I was to base my impression of the books on the first few chapters of SS/PS, I would have stopped reading right then. The backstory was interminable! The hints that were dropped, though, Dumbledore's light-putter-outer, McGonagall changing from a cat, and the episode with the snake at the zoo, made me think there was something else coming. I was already obligated to read to the kid; I began to enjoy the story once Harry boarded the Hogwarts Express. Potioncat: *(snipping to take things out of order)* > The books entertained on so many levels. I was enchanted by the word > play, by old folklore made new, by something inportant in this book > that was barely mentioned in the last book. I liked the tricks that JKR > played on the readers. I felt so smart when I got a pun or joke right > away, but equally amused when I caught on to it later. It was loads of > fun. Ceridwen: I don't know if I'll read her next book, but I liked the layering I saw through most of the series. Things circled around to bite you, or they didn't when you were sure they might. I liked the way that the reader was introduced to the WW. I thought the names of the various authors were funny, and something that I might appreciate that the daughter would only understand as she learned more about the world. I also liked that she snuck the book and read parts of some of the chapters, though the level was just slightly above her level at the time. Potioncat: > From then on the book titles might as well > have been "HP and the ______ and What Snape Did About It". Ceridwen: We were reading the same books! I was sure Snape wasn't the villain of PS/SS, just because Harry suspected him all along - it's never the first suspect, unless another suspect shows up relatively early on - but I was equally sure there was something more with Snape than Harry noticed. His saving Harry from the broom hex did it. I watched him through the rest of the series to see what he would do to facilitate Harry next. Ceridwen. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Oct 12 14:59:45 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:59:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0710112054o45a7ea66w17088b3c3add4af2@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0710112054o45a7ea66w17088b3c3add4af2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6E4581B8-8C44-4744-9F6E-48DA9A769674@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177915 On 2007, Oct 11, , at 19:54, Lynda Cordova wrote: > I was hooked from my first reading of SS. Hands down. If I had > found the > latter books lacking I would have quit reading them. There are > simply too > many books written that I do enjoy reading for me to use my reading > time on > something I don't enjoy. For example: I do not read the Lemony Snicket > books. Tried the first one, hated it. I don't read Philip > Pullman. Tried > it. Didn't like. Dean Koontz is my favorite writer, but I won't > touch the > Odd Thomas books with a ten foot pole. Tried Anne Rice. Didn't > work for > me. But HP did. Just like Susan Cooper's books, TA Barron's books, > Jim > Butcher's, and nearly all of Koontz's stuff. Along with many others! > > Lynda I remember clearly when SS first appeared at my favorite book store. The book store has sales people who really know the books - they actually READ a lot of the books in their section of the store and can talk about them intelligently. So, there was this sizable display of the book. I looked at it and thought the cover looked rather silly, so I bought something else. But on a return trip, I was in the mood for something like it, so I bought it. I was hooked from the start. I also got hooked on the British versions of the story and the audios and the German translations. I tried the Spanish and the French translations, but I am not proficient enough in those languages. Sigh. Laura PS, I agree about Lemony Snicket and Philip Pullman. -- 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 Fri Oct 12 15:09:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:09:48 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: <6E4581B8-8C44-4744-9F6E-48DA9A769674@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: >> I remember clearly when SS first appeared at my favorite > book store. The book store has sales people who really > know the books - they actually READ a lot of the books in > their section of the store and can talk about them intelligently. > So, there was this sizable display of the book. I looked at it > and thought the cover looked rather silly, so I bought something > else. But on a return trip, I was in the mood for something like > it, so I bought it. I was hooked from the start. > Alla: Anything in particular that hooked you on the books from the start or just everything? :) Because you see, to me PS/SS was indeed a fairy tale, lovely, exciting, but fairy tale, certainly I bought the second book and then third and fourth, but if I had LONG intervals between waiting for the second and third book, I am not sure if I would become the Potter fan to such extent, you know? Was there anything special in PS?SS that made you decide - oh yeah, my kind of books. As I mentioned before my heart belonged to Harry, yes from the start, but I was oh so very intrigued by the fact that Snape was so nasty and at the same time seemed to be honorable, that I just had to keep reading. The fact that I did not have to wait long for third book, well, helped a lot and just as zgirnius, after third book I knew I would never be able to forget about these books and they will be on the shelf I reread the most ( and trust me I have plenty of books I reread a lot ;)) Alla From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Oct 12 15:35:56 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:35:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177917 On 2007, Oct 12, , at 07:09, dumbledore11214 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh > wrote: > >>> I remember clearly when SS first appeared at my favorite >> book store. The book store has sales people who really >> know the books - they actually READ a lot of the books in >> their section of the store and can talk about them intelligently. >> So, there was this sizable display of the book. I looked at it >> and thought the cover looked rather silly, so I bought something >> else. But on a return trip, I was in the mood for something like >> it, so I bought it. I was hooked from the start. >> > > > Alla: > > Anything in particular that hooked you on the books from the start or > just everything? :) I suppose if I think about it, there are several things that really appeal to me about the books. I read a LOT of books designed for upper elementary or middle school aged children and it seems like many of them have become so issue oriented that it is oppressive. The kids are dealing with divorce, death of a sibling, a horrific car accident, gangs, sex, etc. These books, in contrast, deal with serious issues, but they don't always take themselves so seriously. There is humor and relief to balance out the seriousness. [I have read an analysis of The Hobbit that points out the alternating bad and good chapters and I think this is part of the appeal - we can stand the bad if there is some comic relief interspersed.] Secondly, the books are complex enough to keep up continued interest. As witnessed in this forum, there is a lot to think about and to talk about. There are many, many levels to on which to discuss them; there are many complex topics that they explore. You can look at them as a sort of mystery, with clues to explore; you can look at them as an allegory, which relationships to history or current events. The fact that they deal with a magical world set alongside of the real world invites parallels at all sorts of levels. Finally, there are the characters. I am not sure how authors manage to get you interested in their characters, but, for me, that is a critical element for my enjoyment of any book. I really have to be interested in one or more of the characters. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that I wasn't particularly taken by Snape. I am not sure I understand why he never captured my interest as much as he obviously did for many others, but Harry, Ron, and Hermione certainly did. And, not just them, but loads of the other characters, too. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 12 16:36:45 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:36:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177918 > > Pippin: > > It's simple, IMO. He thought all the stuff in there was *lost*. > > Goddlefrood: > > One way of spinning it, not consistent with canon, but possible. Pippin: Perfectly consistent with canon, IMO. It's emphasized that not everyone who finds the room or uses it "gets" it. Dumbledore, Fred and George, and Filch all mistook the nature of the room, so it's perfectly well-established that Riddle might. And the Room *can* bring things by magic, like the broken sneak-o- scopes that Harry last saw in Fake!Moody's office. (It can't bring food from the kitchens, but that makes sense since the House Elves would be using their own magic to keep students from stealing it.) So it seems perfectly plausible to me that Riddle, knowing the room can bring things to itself, thought it was collecting lost things and offered him the room of lost things as a place to hide his treasure. He does think he's different and special. It's a problem with the whole child hero genre that the villains have to be strong enough to be a credible threat but also capable of making huge mistakes so that a child can beat them. I agree that Voldemort's grandstanding and egotism are his weakness. They make him interpret events in ways that flatter him and then, IMO, he uses his brilliance to invent logical underpinnings for whatever he wants to believe Goddlefrood: > In PS he had the superb idea of obtaining the Philosopher's > Stone so that he could come back. When he actually *did* come > back he needed a loyal servant, the bones of his father and > the blood of an enemy. Perhaps he also needed the sustenance > provided by Nagini's milk. However, all those things were > available to him in PS. Pippin: Voldemort explained in GoF that he had not wanted to resume a mortal body until he could guarantee its immortality with the Stone. But when the Stone was destroyed he set his sights lower. Quirrell was not as easily dominated as Peter Pettigrew, whom Voldemort never needed to possess. I can believe that Voldemort wouldn't want to risk taking such a helpless form as the ugly baby and expose himself to the mercies of the ambitious and imaginative Quirrell. As we hear in PS/SS and GoF and actually see in DH, in his disembodied form he is terribly afraid. It's not clear what he thinks can still happen to him, but I'd guess dementors are part of it. But after all he's paranoid. He doesn't need *reasons* to be afraid. The elaborate plans he makes to bring Harry to him in GoF are very typical of the schemes devised by RL psychotic killers. Just offing Harry in a dark alley wouldn't be any kind of a thrill. Making him jump through a years worth of hoops and then killing him in a mock duel in front of his followers, now that's worthwhile. The thing about Voldemort is he has only his own pleasure to consider. If taking a year to kill Harry is going to gratify him as much as ruling the wizarding world, why should making himself ruler of the WW take precedence? What makes Voldemort such a scary opponent to me is that while he makes no secret of what he wants, it's very difficult for a normal person to divine his priorities or anticipate his schemes. How could Dumbledore possibily expect that Voldemort, with his agent in place, would wait a whole year to attack Harry, and then would do it not by ambush but by abduction? Who in their right mind would invent a plan that requires someone to take polyjuice every waking hour for something like ten months? But theoretically it could work, and it did. Turning to the Hall of Prophecy, of course Voldemort could have gotten in by himself. But unless Harry could be made to come there, it would have been perfectly clear that only Voldemort could have taken the orb. He might have found a means to disguise the theft of course, but he doesn't only want to get the prophecy, he wants to stick it to Dumbledore and make Harry dance to his tune. It's all about his own gratification. If manipulating Harry and Dumbledore will give him as much or more pleasure than conquering the WW, why should conquering the WW take precedence? As for the horcruxes, remember, Voldemort had no way of knowing what really happened in the chamber of secrets. He didn't know there was a supply of basilisk fangs down there-- actually Ron didn't know himself, it was just a guess. Voldie didn't know that Gryffindor's sword had imbibed the ability to destroy horcruxes, either. But he did know that Dumbledore had been working to suppress the knowledge of horcruxes for most of his life. Again, he's egotistical enough to believe that he's the only one who penetrated Dumbledore's precautions and brilliant enough to invent logical reasons why this should be so. He's not stupid, he just cares about nothing except his own gratification. King's Cross had it right -- emotionally he's an infant. But that has nothing to do with his intelligence. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Oct 12 16:48:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:48:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) Message-ID: <23997982.1192207738047.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177919 From: pippin_999 >I agree that Voldemort's grandstanding and egotism are >his weakness. They make him interpret events in ways that >flatter him and then, IMO, he uses his brilliance to invent >logical underpinnings for whatever he wants to believe Well, it IS in keeping with psychopathy. And Morty DID learn how to fly without self-transmutation or a broom, he figured out the "make a new body" spell, he figured out the Chamber of Secrets, he talked RC, Jr. into giving him the location of the tiara, just to name a few notable accomplishments. Actually, for a psychopath, Morty was incredibly good at keeping on track. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 18:07:06 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:07:06 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177920 Betsy Hp: I've started and stopped a couple of different replies to this. But they've mostly boiled down to "she said; she said" which is, IMO, kind of boring. So instead I'm going to try and see *why* our readings are so vastly different. (Obviously, I'm not a mind-reader and so this is all my opinion.) For example: > >>Pippin: > "Lily gave herself away by half glancing towards where Snape stood, > nearby." --DH ch 33 > She didn't mean to expose Snape. But she hadn't got his aptitude > for sneakery. > > Dumbledore didn't even know that Snape was still mourning Lily. He > was shocked. > "After all this time?" ? DH ch 33 Betsy Hp: For me, Lily is being passive-aggressive and Dumbledore is a liar. And I think part of the difference comes down to this: > >>Pippin: > > There's no one to take responsibility for the adult Trio, > to punish them or grant them forgiveness. They have > to live with what they did. > > I'm reading that into the text. But it's a fairy tale. > That's what you're supposed to do. It makes more sense > than having to read the humanity of one quarter of wizard > kind *out* of the story after JKR went to such lengths to > put it there. Betsy Hp: You have more faith in JKR than I do. You're putting what I think is the best possible spin on things, while I'm putting the worst because I don't trust JKR anymore. If she told me water is wet, I'd have to dip in a toe. I honestly think JKR *did* right off the humanity of a quarter of the school. And yes, it's deeply disturbing and shocking to me to think someone who gave such life to both Draco and Snape would treat them (and "their kind") so poorly. > >>Pippin: > It's a style of story-telling reminiscent of the Book of Genesis, > IMO, where we're seldom told what the characters are thinking, and > parallel story lines are not made explicit, yet for thousands of > years people have connected emotionally with the characters and > found the parallels themselves. Betsy Hp: Ah, but part of the beauty and timelessness of the stories of the Patriarchs is their very humanity. None of them were plaster saints, and when they did wrong (and boy, did they do wrong) they faced the consequences. The story of Jacob and Esau for example: we *are* told of Jacob's fear when he went back to face the brother he'd so sorely wronged. And we saw it expressed in the way he positioned his family. And while we're not told explicitly the feelings occurring when Esau ran to meet Jacob, when the brothers wept together, I think it's pretty easy to see the love and relief and forgiveness there. For me, the story of Jacob and Esau has a much more explicit and concrete reuniting of two opposing forces than the supposed reuniting of those dear friends, Gryffindor and Slytherin, that I'm told is in DH. I think it's because I can relate to both Jacob and Esau (depending on what I'm going through ) in a way I just cannot relate to the Trio (or any of the Potterverse characters, quite frankly). So perhaps our disagreement comes down to this: > >>Pippin: > What I see is that they became more realistic in the end. > Betsy Hp: And I just cannot see that. Neither the plot, nor the quest, nor the characters struck me as at all real. Heck, as soon as the Trio *didn't* die in writhing pain from eating Hermione's wild mushrooms, I realized JKR wasn't inviting me to sink into her story. Instead I kind of got the impression she was rushing me to the door. The story only seems to work (or at least, that's my impression) if questions aren't asked. Which is in direct opposition to fairy-tales, the story of the Patriarchs, a "realistic" tale, or any well told story, IMO. Rather than questions leading me deeper in, I've found questions pull me right out. So rather than being a story that teaches, or even entertains, it's a story that disappoints and, if I do attempt to look deeper, actually repulses. Betsy Hp From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 18:14:13 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:14:13 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Idiocy (Couldn't call it: Voldemort's Intellect ('twas)) In-Reply-To: <23997982.1192207738047.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177921 Pippin: > > I agree that Voldemort's grandstanding and egotism are > his weakness. They make him interpret events in ways that > flatter him and then, IMO, he uses his brilliance to invent > logical underpinnings for whatever he wants to believe > Tiffany: I don't think his intelligence is neither that bad nor good for some of the villains that I've read. I give him props for some moments of sheer brilliance, but he didn't know when to leave the ego at the door. There's no denying that his pride & ego get the best of him more than most villains. When he hatched the RoR plan, he had to know that there were others eyeing the goods in there, otherwise the plan could've been better executed if not for his pride. I don't mind a little bit of grandstanding, as long as it's subdued & low-key in decision making. I admire LV's flair for the dramatic & theaterical penchant because I'm known for being that way also. However, he could at least have some basic sense when he makes his plans. He's got a whole lot of knowledge of the magical arts & dark arts, so he could be better in the way he uses them to accomplish his goals with some basic sense. I know LV's not a braniac, but he's not a bumbling idiot in the villainry world because I've read of villains that'd make LV look like Einstein. I wasn't really all that impressed with how often his ego & pride got into the way of his plans in either HBP or DH. Just try to employ a little more sense & careful planning into things & he could be a serious threat to Hogwarts more often. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 12 19:49:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:49:21 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177922 > > > >>Pippin: > > It's a style of story-telling reminiscent of the Book of Genesis, > > IMO, where we're seldom told what the characters are thinking, and > > parallel story lines are not made explicit, yet for thousands of > > years people have connected emotionally with the characters and > > found the parallels themselves. > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but part of the beauty and timelessness of the stories of the > Patriarchs is their very humanity. None of them were plaster saints, > and when they did wrong (and boy, did they do wrong) they faced the > consequences. The story of Jacob and Esau for example: we *are* told > of Jacob's fear when he went back to face the brother he'd so sorely > wronged. And we saw it expressed in the way he positioned his > family. And while we're not told explicitly the feelings occurring > when Esau ran to meet Jacob, when the brothers wept together, I think > it's pretty easy to see the love and relief and forgiveness there. > > For me, the story of Jacob and Esau has a much more explicit and > concrete reuniting of two opposing forces than the supposed reuniting > of those dear friends, Gryffindor and Slytherin, that I'm told is in > DH. Pippin: Ah, but the reader of Genesis is supposed to know that the Edomites (the descendants of Esau) and the Hebrews were traditional enemies, so the love and forgiveness did not last, though Jacob and Esau came together to bury their father just as the Houses came together to entomb Dumbledore. Nor does the story draw any explicit parallel between Jacob cheating Esau of his blessing and Laban cheating Jacob of Rachel. So while you may read it as Jacob facing the consequences, I've also read plaster saint interpretations in which Jacob gets the blessing because he was the good brother and deserved it, and then was cheated by the uncle he so innocently trusted. JKR gives her readers the same freedom. The story I had in mind was actually the sacrifice of Isaac. We aren't told how Abraham feels about what he's asked to do, or how Isaac reacted to being laid on the altar. The result is that it can be told to children as a consolation story, while adults almost uniformly find it extremely disturbing. It takes some work for an adult not to see it as the story of a cruel god who makes a senseless demand of his follower. This dichotomy is echoed in the story itself, where Isaac's innocent trust is contrasted with Abraham's knowledge of what he has been asked to do. So one of the things the story is about is the different ways that adults and children look at faith. The adult is given the freedom to abandon his faith, but if he does, then the story has no meaning and no reason to be told. It doesn't seem to me that the existence of plot holes has anything to do with whether the author expects you to search for emotional or moral meanings. Genesis has some of the most famous plot holes in history. (Who *did* Cain marry?) Many people question the events in a realistic or historic sense but still consider the stories emotionally and morally valid. Betsy HP: I think it's because I can relate to both Jacob and Esau > (depending on what I'm going through ) in a way I just cannot > relate to the Trio (or any of the Potterverse characters, quite > frankly). > And I just cannot see that. Neither the plot, nor the quest, nor the > characters struck me as at all real. Heck, as soon as the Trio > *didn't* die in writhing pain from eating Hermione's wild mushrooms, > I realized JKR wasn't inviting me to sink into her story. Instead I > kind of got the impression she was rushing me to the door. Pippin: I guess that's it. I can relate to the characters, and it doesn't bother me that Hermione can eat dubious mushrooms and only get a bit sick. Wizards can drink potions full of aconite, too. The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show that Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the central problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it cannot secure resources, but every additional member is a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. The plot made sense to me as a way of getting Harry to understand about the uses and limitations of power and trust in a way that just sending him off to destroy the horcruxes wouldn't have done. I do agree we are shown to the door in DH, a bit like Harry being told that the Mirror of Erised will be taken to a new hiding place and he must not look for it again. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 19:56:45 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:56:45 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177923 > >>Alla: > I am not asking here who and why recommended the books to you, > where you initially heard about them, etc. I think this discussion > would belong to OTC list, hehe. > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. > Betsy Hp: Two things hooked me: Harry being stuck in the closet, and Slytherin. I adored Roald Dahl as a kid, and it perked me right up when I realized this was a kid's book author who was going to make her hero actually *suffer*. (I like to see a bit of blood and tears before victory is claimed. ) And then we met Draco, who was awkward and adorable and imaginative and so, so, so wanting to be friends with *Harry* (rather than "Harry Potter"). And we got Hagrid telling what I thought was supposed to be a big fat lie. And then there was Snape. Snape... ::sigh:: So smart, so sardonic, so obviously the goodest of the good guys by virtue of his being a bad-ass. The ending of PS/SS had me flipping right back to the beginning for a reread and then marching out to the bookstore to spend money we did not have on the rest of the series. (PoA and GoF were in hardback at the time and I remember literally pacing in the children's section trying to determine if I should make the purchase or not.) I remember being a bit disappointed with OotP because of the lack of Draco, and I think that's when I started cruising the internet looking to see people's thoughts on Draco and his role in the books. The wonderful essays and thoughts I found (as well as the wonderful chapter of Snape's worst memory) got me through. And of course, HBP was like a gift. Finally we were getting to see glimpses of the real Snape, the real Draco... yeah. I was burned pretty badly with this series, unfortunately. But back in the day when it looked like Harry was going to have a hard run of it, that Draco was going to become Harry's best friend, and Snape was going to be the adult that helped Harry out the most? Back then it looked like JKR was really writing something. Betsy Hp From lmscallon at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 19:37:46 2007 From: lmscallon at yahoo.com (lmscallon) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:37:46 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177924 This is my first post to this list, however I have been subscribed to this list for some time (trying had to keep up with the very informative posts!). I hope I don't ask something that has been talked to death, or is just plain stupid... but here goes. I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an important point. Am I missing a deeper meaning, or am I overanalyzing :) Lorelei From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 16:09:02 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (amanda davis) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix Message-ID: <216203.31600.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177925 **To Simon: Thank You for clearing up the thoughts on how Fudge might have been cursed into doing something bad. **Simon: My second thought would be, Fudge's paranoid delusion that hold on to so tightly in the Order of the Phoenix should have been portrayed to have been worse on his part as his decisions greatly affect the outcome of daily life of the muggles in The Half Blood Prince. **Simon: My third point would be, The Stance that Fudge held so strongly in OotP should have made him look different in the eyes of the ministry, instead they gave him a job without the full power but left in position to influence the outcome of the ministry in THBP. **Simon: In your opinion, How could The fact that Fudge ignored the stirrings of what had happened, lined up with what had happened in the past, (and have allowed it to get so far out of hand) before taking the steps to stop it when they had the chance to. Not have been visited more in the book? **Simon: How could Fudge have completely ignored the fact that Dumbledore was the only Wizard the LV was ever scared of, and try to completely remove him from power? Looking for your opinion. **Simon: How can with all the facts from above not be linked to the fact it could have been seen that Cornelius Fudge could have working for LV unknowingly? Just looking for opinions again. Amanda From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 12 20:11:01 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:11:01 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177926 >>Alla wrote: > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) > > colebiancardi: hmmmm. I know that I got exposed to the books when I was babysitting a child of my friend. I got *hooked* right away as the chapter I had to start on was "The Potions Master". I fell in love (not THAT way) with the character of Snape. I went out the next day and bought the first two books, as that was all that was out at the time. I read them fast & furious and could not wait for the next installment. This of course, was back in the days when JKR put out a book every year! I stuck with them because I was totally immersed with the Snape character - could he be bad or was he really good? What was he playing at? Hard to believe, but the first 3 books never told you about Snape as a DE or that he was a spy. Just that he was a greasy git. Also, I loved the world of Hogwarts - the magic and the mundane rolled into one - yes, the mundane - kids still having to deal with kid issues (like, too much homework, bullies, cool kids, nerdy kids, really neat teachers and horrible ones) I enjoyed JKR's descriptions - never got too much into the FLINTS until she started taking too long to produce a new book. I started nit-picking the books around OotP and have continue to do so. but the main reason was Snape - I agree with PotionCat - the books, for me, could have been titled "Harry Potter gets it wrong about Snape again about the xxxxxxxxxxxxx" but that is just me :) colebiancardi From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 21:34:14 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Weasley's lack of wealth Message-ID: <804353.66358.qm@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177927 Lorelei said: I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an important point. Am I missing a deeper meaning, or am I overanalyzing :) Pam says: I think that they are a counterpoint to the wealthy Potters, Blacks and Malfoys. Without the Weasleys, you wouldn't know that all wizards aren't wealthy. And in truth, the Weasleys aren't in bad shape. They just have a lot of kids, and they're putting seven kids through Hogwarts--for a long time, four at once! One would have to assume that Mr. Weasley earns as much as any other Ministry official of his grade, which is a comfortable living, they just have to make it stretch further. Mrs. Weasley doesn't have a paying job, and she certainly could, but she represents the stay-at-home mom choice. They have less money, but they're happy. I also wondered why the Weasleys didn't have a house elf. House elves are apparently not bought or sold like slaves, and there is no cost associated with them, and nobody seemed to have a moral problem with the concept of house elves until Hermione came along, so why not? I think the Weasleys represent JKR's vision of the perfect family, and in her world, where she's been both poor and wealthy, she knows that perfect and rich are not necessarily synonymous. What family would you rather be a part of, The Blacks or the Weasleys? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 12 23:35:45 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:35:45 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177928 Alla: > I am not asking here who and why recommended the books to you, where > you initially heard about them, etc. I think this discussion would > belong to OTC list, hehe. > > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) Pippin: I started reading the books about the time the PoA paperback came out. I'd been reading *about* them for a while in the book review sections. I loved PS/SS although I wondered as I read it for the first time why the reviewers had been puzzling over this Snape guy; he seemed like a garden variety Snidely Whiplash to me :) Then I read the second book and it was even better! And the third book was even more better! I loved the characters, and the way they had to struggle with ordinary school stuff as well as saving the world. I loved all the borrowing from folklore, and the way the books didn't talk down to the reader. By the time GoF came out I thought I was completely obsessed because I sent my teenage son down to wait in line at the bookstore. I never thought I'd get obsessed enough to wait myself. Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 00:21:47 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:21:47 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177929 > > Alla: > > > > Anything in particular that hooked you on the books from the > > start or just everything? :) Mike: I'm like zgirnius, if there had been only two books out when I started them, I would have given up. The story was fun, I liked Harry and Ron (Hermione was just okay) and I was interested in Snape insofar as he seemed to have a connection to Harry's parents. It was PoA that got me hooked. Wonderful things kept popping up. The Dementors were scary, I wanted to know who this Lupin character was, the Marauder's Map was the coolest thing (and finding out Harry's dad and co. made it was a bonus), Harry's Firebolt (cuz I loved Quidditch and loved that there was so much of it in PoA), then the whole last part of PoA was riveting. I loved getting the back story on the Marauders and Snape, loved that JKR had Hermione helping Harry with the time turner, and was overwhelmed by the connection Harry got to James through his "Prongs" Patronus. One of the biggest reasons PoA got me was that Harry finally won the day with magic. If you think about it, Harry came out the hero in both PS and CoS without really doing any magic. Now, PoA comes along and Harry not only wins with magic he performs advanced, powerful magic. Yeah, now we're getting somewhere! > Laura > > The kids are dealing with divorce, death of a sibling, a > horrific car accident, gangs, sex, etc. These books, > in contrast, deal with serious issues, but they don't > always take themselves so seriously. There is humor > and relief to balance out the seriousness. Mike: This is a good point. There was not only a lot of humor, but the serious themes weren't being shoved in our face. I'd much rather JKR's subtle method than have to endure overwrought dialogue between angst ridden teenagers. > Laura > Secondly, the books are complex enough to keep > up continued interest. Mike: Another good point, Laura. I loved to think back and see how many things were slyly or matter-of-factly brought up in one book, only to resurface again and again in later books. The vanishing cabinets were the most famous, especially how close Harry came to discovering their secret. But we also got the Whomping Willow, the Shrieking Shack, the RoR, Riddle's Diary, the Pensieve and "Expelliarmus". It made me want to reread every book to see if I could guess what would make a re- appearance. > Laura > Finally, there are the characters. > It is somewhat surprising, therefore, > that I wasn't particularly taken by Snape. Mike; I loved to hate Snape, but like you, I wasn't really that much interested in him. I didn't care what happened to him like I cared what happened to Harry. I was interested in his story inasmuch as it involved MWPP and Lily, but not for Snape's sake. I admit that I was sorry to find his love for Lily was his sole motivation, I expected something more. But it didn't bother me that much and I noted that others enlightened me to LOLLIPOPS going all the way back to PoA. > Laura > but Harry, Ron, and Hermione certainly did. And, not just them, > but loads of the other characters, too. Mike: Oh Yes!! 4 for 4 Laura!! The other characters made the story. I was invested in Harry, but it was the other characters that made the story fun to follow. Let's face it, Harry was just too bland. But the Marauders (especially Sirius), the Twins, Luna, Neville, and even Snape and Draco were much more colorful. They were where my fun came from. And Ron was downright funny. From simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 00:31:37 2007 From: simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com (simonsebastiansmith) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:31:37 -0000 Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix In-Reply-To: <216203.31600.qm@web44802.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177930 > Amanda wrote: > >Fudge's paranoid delusion that hold on to so tightly in the Order of >the Phoenix should have been portrayed to have been worse on his >part as his decisions greatly affect the outcome of daily life of >the muggles in The Half Blood Prince. > Simon: Do you mean the author or the characters? The author certainly makes it clear that Fudge was never a good leader in peacetime, let alone war, but you must remember that the Ministry is corrupt and would have let him keep his position. >Amanda wrote: >The Stance that Fudge held so strongly in OotP should have made him >look different in the eyes of the ministry, instead they gave him a >job without the full power but left in position to influence the >outcome of the ministry in THBP. > Simon: Again, the Ministry was corrupt and unwilling to properly learn from its mistakes on decieving the people. Fudge had done a good job in that respect, so his position as advisor probably consisted of him telling Scrimgeour how to twist the news. >Amanda wrote: >In your opinion, How could The fact that Fudge ignored the stirrings >of what had happened, lined up with what had happened in the past, >(and have allowed it to get so far out of hand) before taking the >steps to stop it when they had the chance to. Not have been visited >more in the book? > Simon: He knew he wasn't good enough to lead WW Britain against Voldemort. His (presumably) more competent predecessor had had difficulty enough the first war through, and considering Dumbledore's comment about "precious little to celebrate in eleven years," never had any real successes against Voldemort. Fudge didn't want to even try. >Amanda wrote: >How could Fudge have completely ignored the fact that Dumbledore was >the only Wizard the LV was ever scared of, and try to completely >remove him from power? Looking for your opinion. > Simon: He (like Scrimgeour) had to do SOMETHING. The best thing to do, seeing as Fudge didn't want to admit Lord Voldemort's return because of the trouble that would mean for him personally, would be to silence the opposition. And that's exactly what he did. >Amanda wrote: >How can with all the facts from above not be linked to the fact it >could have been seen that Cornelius Fudge could have working for LV >unknowingly? Just looking for opinions again. > Simon: Because he was refusing to admit the return before anyone would have had a chance to curse him. Only Crouch and Wormtail were acting under Voldemort's orders in Book 4, as proven by the way he speaks to all of the Death Eaters who answer the call. If Crouch had cursed Fudge, it would have worn off during the Kiss and the Fudge would have cooperated with Dumbledore from the beginning. It was the way Fudge was already acting, therefore, he would not have been cursed. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 22:27:11 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:27:11 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177931 Lorelei: I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an important point. Am I missing a deeper meaning, or am I overanalyzing :) Tiffany: Though not exactly poor, the Weasleys are more middle class than the Blacks, Malfoys, & Potters are. Both of the Weasley parents earn a good salary for their positions, but aren't exactly wealthy. I think they are a great counteracting force to a sense that the students at Hogwarts are from the upper classes of society because some of the students acted spoiled rich kids in the earlier novels. I've always admired the work ethic & leadership qualities the Weasley twins have. In GoF in particular, they really were showing off their good sides very well. I think the fact that their parents have had other students at Hogwarts is a good example of the fact that the Weasley's are living comfortably, but not rolling in the dough. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 01:47:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:47:09 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177932 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > For me, the story of Jacob and Esau has a much more explicit and > > concrete reuniting of two opposing forces than the supposed > > reuniting of those dear friends, Gryffindor and Slytherin, that > > I'm told is in DH. > >>Pippin: > Ah, but the reader of Genesis is supposed to know that the > Edomites (the descendants of Esau) and the Hebrews were traditional > enemies, so the love and forgiveness did not last, though Jacob and > Esau came together to bury their father just as the Houses came > together to entomb Dumbledore. > Betsy Hp: Maybe back in the day, but the story's power has remained long after the knowledge of how the various descendents fell out was common knowledge. That's the timelessness I was talking about. The kernel story had enough going for it that it was told time and time again, written down, and finally canonized. JKR doesn't even give us that kernel. In fact, you're asking me to twist the text and squint at it sideways to see a loving reunion that in Genesis was made obvious by actions and tears. For some reason I'm supposed to buy that JKR would expect for me to pick up on esoteric symbols to get the heart of her story and overlook the mess that is the obvious tale. Why? Why should I have to work so hard to make the story something other than repulsive? What makes this book worth that work, and why doesn't the author have to do any of it? > >>Pippin: > JKR gives her readers the same freedom. The story I had > in mind was actually the sacrifice of Isaac. We aren't told how > Abraham feels about what he's asked to do, or how Isaac > reacted to being laid on the altar. The result is that > it can be told to children as a consolation story, while adults > almost uniformly find it extremely disturbing. > Betsy Hp: Oh. You should have specified. Yes, that's a disturbing story and we're not given any hints as far as the players go as to how we should interpert it. That's not what JKR does at all. Harry is the hero, Dumbledore is his mentor, Voldemort is the villain. That's all up front and straight forward. JKR spoon-feeds us our emotions. Sure, sometimes she's crap at it when it comes to me, because she and I don't see eye to eye, but it's not because she doesn't try. Very different from the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, IMO. > >>Pippin: > It doesn't seem to me that the existence of plot holes has > anything to do with whether the author expects you to search > for emotional or moral meanings. > Betsy Hp: Oh, the *author* can have all the expectations in the world. I'm talking about what I, the reader, got out of the story. And I got a gigantic mess with a moral so disturbing it actually struck me as evil. > >>Pippin: > > The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show that > Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the central > problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it > cannot secure resources, but every additional member is > a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. > Betsy Hp: Seriously? That's what you were thinking about? I was wondering when Harry was going to pull his head out of his ass and put a plan together. I was also wondering when this really, really boring time watching the Trio hang out and whine together would ever, ever end. I wasn't getting any insight into group economics and the difficulty of sustaining a viable tribe. (Boy, I'd love to see JKR faced with that question in an interview. Like a deer in headlights, I bet.) > >>Pippin: > > I do agree we are shown to the door in DH, a bit like > Harry being told that the Mirror of Erised will be taken to a new > hiding place and he must not look for it again. Betsy Hp: Yeah. I'm not anything like Harry. I question. DH, IMO, doesn't stand up to questions. It was, IMO, a failure. Betsy Hp From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Oct 13 02:23:24 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:23:24 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tiffany B. Clark" wrote: > > Though not exactly poor, the Weasleys are more middle class than the > Blacks, Malfoys, & Potters are. Both of the Weasley parents earn a > good salary for their positions, but aren't exactly wealthy. Mus is puzzled: But Molly has neither a position nor a salary. She's a housewife who worries about the cost of schoolbooks and clothes, for whom buying Ron a broom when he is made Prefect is a problem: " 'Mum,' said Ron hopefully, 'can I have a new broom? Mrs Weasley's face fell slightly; broomsticks were expensive 'Not a really good one!' Ron hastened to add. 'Just - just a new one for a change...' " [OotP UK hb: 149-50] No mother would willingly put her child in secondhand robes if she could afford to do otherwise - remember Ron's ghastly dress robes? Ron certainly knows that they are poor - that's why he's apprehensive about what Harry will think of The Burrow, and why he's so proud that he's able to pay Harry back with the leprechaun gold for the Omnioculars in GoF: he's embarrassed that his family are poor, and like many poor people, extremely anxious not to be seen as such. As to why they're portrayed as poor, I have no idea, except that they fit snugly into a couple of stereotypes: niceness and hyperfertility as natural correlates of poverty. Mus From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Oct 13 02:24:35 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:24:35 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177934 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lmscallon" wrote: > I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the > Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to > separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it > was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a > source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading > COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an > important point. > Allie: Maybe I'm wrong, but it all became clear in my head at the end of GoF. P.711, US, Molly Weasley says, "We know what Fudge is. It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride." After I read that, I said, "Ohhhhhh." I thought that was a very tender and sad way of saying that the Weasley family has been suffering all these years for their lack of prejudice. Eventually, (early HBP maybe?) Arthur gets promoted and there seems to be less of a money problem after that. From va32h at comcast.net Sat Oct 13 03:01:19 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:01:19 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > I thought that was a very tender and sad way of saying that the > Weasley family has been suffering all these years for their lack of > prejudice. Eventually, (early HBP maybe?) Arthur gets promoted and > there seems to be less of a money problem after that. > va32h: And the Weasley poverty had served it's purpose. Harry is your basic secretly rich orphan, so his best friend naturally must come from a poor but loving family. What one has the other lacks. And this lays the groundwork for future conflicts and jealousies. Whenever the plot demands that the Weasleys not be poor, they miraculously aren't. In CoS, the Weasley poverty serves a lots of plot devices. Ginny needs secondhand books into which the diary can be slipped without notice. Ron needs a broken wand so that Lockhart's memory charm will backfire. But when Ron needs a new wand the next year, Arthur conveniently wins several hundred galleons. The poverty comes in handy again in GoF, when Ron and Harry have their tiff, but once that's resolved, so are all mentions of Weasley money problems. Molly worries over the cost of the broom, but she can still get it. By HBP, Arthur has a promotion, the twins are doing well, and the Weasley money situation is no longer relevant. va32h From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 04:19:39 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:19:39 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Pippin: > > > > The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show that > > Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the central > > problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it > > cannot secure resources, but every additional member is > > a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Seriously? That's what you were thinking about? I was wondering > when Harry was going to pull his head out of his ass and put a plan > together. I was also wondering when this really, really boring > time watching the Trio hang out and whine together would ever, ever > end. I wasn't getting any insight into group economics and the > difficulty of sustaining a viable tribe. (Boy, I'd love to see > JKR faced with that question in an interview. Like a deer in > headlights, I bet.) Montavilla47: I was wondering why they didn't just apparate to the nearest large Muggle town and look for the Kwiki-Mart. I can understand foraging in the woods for a day or two, but the entire Wizarding World does not have the resources to find two people in a population of millions. Especially when Hermione and Harry know far more about Muggles and how to blend in with them than any non-Muggleborn wizard would. And, what with the slaughter and de-wanding of Muggleborn wizards, they weren't exactly in any position to help with the hunt for the Undesireable One. I have to stop, because when I start thinking of the rudimentary things you'd do if you were a fugative (like pack a couple sandwiches), I end up with a million questions. Just one of them is: Why not have Bill retrieve some of the gold from Harry's account in the *weeks* before the wedding so they'd have emergency cash? Montavilla47 From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 03:54:17 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:54:17 -0000 Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177937 To Simon: Thank you for taking the time and giving me well thought out answers. I have one more question, if the author had gone into more detail with goings on in the ministry while all the Dumbledore bashing and derailment was going on, do you feel it would have confused the readers as to what exactly the point was she was trying to make? The reason I ask is to some degree it might have helped sway the readers to have more good feelings of the ministry during all the turmoil. Amanda From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sat Oct 13 05:19:14 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:19:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!D... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177938 Montavilla47: I was wondering why they didn't just apparate to the nearest large Muggle town and look for the Kwiki-Mart. I can understand foraging in the woods for a day or two, but the entire Wizarding World does not have the resources to find two people in a population of millions. Sandy: Isn't that exactly what they did when they apparated from the wedding... and then were immediately besieged by the two Death Eaters in the diner? Ron, once he came back into the fold, explained how that happened, but at the time they had no idea how the DE's had found them so quickly. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 13 05:24:21 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:24:21 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177939 I always thought that for most Ministry employees the bulk of their income does not came from their salary but from bribes. Arthur Weasley is one of the very few who is not corrupt and so must live on just his salary; hard to do with so many kids. Also his fondness for Muggles probably prevented him from advancing as much as he deserved to. Eggplant From simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 05:17:29 2007 From: simonsebastiansmith at yahoo.com (simonsebastiansmith) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:17:29 -0000 Subject: In Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177940 >Amanda wrote: >I have one more question, if the author had gone into more detail >with goings on in the ministry while all the Dumbledore bashing and >derailment was going on, do you feel it would have confused the >readers as to what exactly the point was she was trying to make? The >reason I ask is to some degree it might have helped sway the readers >to have more good feelings of the ministry during all the turmoil. > > Amanda > Simon: I think the readers wouldn't have been confused at all. Most of the Ministry probably isn't changed much no matter the situation. People like the man with the fire-breathing chicken and the security guard do more or less the same thing no matter who is running the organization, and we wouldn't have seen much of them anyways. The only people who would have been involved in focusing on the Ministry were the Aurors, and as it stands we've got a set of each- Kingsley and Tonks were Order, and Dawlish and Scrimgeour were Ministry- supporters. Not coincidentally, what we see and hear of the latter two through Book 5 and on isn't good. Simon From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 13 14:30:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:30:28 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177941 Eggplant: > I always thought that for most Ministry employees the bulk of their > income does not came from their salary but from bribes. Arthur Weasley > is one of the very few who is not corrupt and so must live on just his > salary; hard to do with so many kids. Also his fondness for Muggles > probably prevented him from advancing as much as he deserved to. Magpie: We know he's not above creating laws around his own wishes, his house is full of stuff that he's supposed to be preventing, and he gets a pile of tickets for the QWC that are hard to come by by smoothing over an incident involving a friend. I've heard the word "corrupt" used to describe Arthur many times. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 13 16:37:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:37:02 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177942 > Betsy Hp: > JKR doesn't even give us that kernel. In fact, you're asking me to > twist the text and squint at it sideways to see a loving reunion that > in Genesis was made obvious by actions and tears. Pippin: Um, did I say there was a loving reunion? There was recognition by our heroes that Slytherins and Gryffindors should not be turned against each other. That Slytherins could be excellent wizards and worthy of the most respectable position in the WW. That the choice of House could be made perfectly well by the child and the Hat together, and adults (and older siblings) can stay out of it. There is no straining necessary to pick up on that, it's right there in the text. What's missing is the soul-searching the heroes went through to reach that conclusion. It's not there, IMO, because adults don't need it, while for children it would be out of place. It's not fair to burden children with adult angst. Adults can see for themselves that Harry's hatred of Snape led to his watching a murder take place and not even thinking that he should do something to stop it. Harry, of the "saving people thing" didn't even think of saving Snape. That's not repulsive, IMO, it's tragic. It's very typical of the way that prejudice works in that Harry didn't make a *conscious* decision not to intervene. He didn't think to himself "Snape is an evil murderer and I don't care if he dies" -- he just didn't see Snape as someone worth saving. Like Sirius, he didn't live up to his philosophy. That Harry is a hero, that he could have challenged Voldemort if he'd thought of it, is what makes it so sad. I don't really think it takes effort to see that so much as time to let the events of the story sink in. It's just coming clear to me now. As for what makes it worth the effort, if we are going to go to all the trouble of criticizing a book and discussing it in depth, we might as well try to understand it. Just IMO, of course. > > >>Pippin: > > > > The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show that > > Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the central > > problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it > > cannot secure resources, but every additional member is > > a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Seriously? That's what you were thinking about? I was wondering > when Harry was going to pull his head out of his ass and put a plan > together. Pippin: Seriously? When has Harry ever been able to put a plan together? He's a top-notch improviser, but he never learned to plan. Hermione always did it for him, but she was out of her league this time. What I got out of the whining was that Gryffindor niceness (and by extension all niceness) was mostly a matter of confidence that your basic needs are being met. Which made me think about why their basic needs weren't being met, and if I would find out what basic need of the Slytherins wasn't being met. Which, in Snape's case, I certainly did. Betsy HP: (Boy, I'd love to see > JKR faced with that question in an interview. Like a deer in > headlights, I bet.) Pippin: We've been puzzling for ages over why anybody has to be poor in a world full of magic. Obviously she did want poverty to exist, and she set up the rules of magic so that food, clothing, shelter and love cannot be conjured out of nothing. It's quirky all right--can you transfigure your desk into a pig as long as you're not going to eat it? But claiming that a woman who once lived on welfare and is now one of the richest woman in Britain isn't aware of basic economics is, well, vastly amusing. > > >>Pippin: > > > > I do agree we are shown to the door in DH, a bit like > > Harry being told that the Mirror of Erised will be taken to a new > > hiding place and he must not look for it again. > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah. I'm not anything like Harry. I question. DH, IMO, > doesn't stand up to questions. It was, IMO, a failure. Pippin: See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. Pippin From i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 15:11:52 2007 From: i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com (Demonsplaygirl) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? Message-ID: <671431.99641.qm@web45516.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177943 Hi all, My name Is Hope, and I'm new to the group. And the Reason that I decided to continue reading HP books, is because after the first one I was hooked!! It was like a new addiction, for almost every book, I was there at midnight, waiting for the new book intently, and it had to be once or twice that I started reading it right there in the store!!! I've wrestled kids, and adults for one of the first copies, lol that was an adventure. But because the books are so awesomely written, and it sucks you in, like Tom Riddles Diary did to Harry Potter, in the Chamber of Secrets. You become a part of the story. Thats why I continued to read Harry Potter Books... Hope From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 19:21:34 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:21:34 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177944 > Mus is puzzled: > > But Molly has neither a position nor a salary. She's a housewife who > worries about the cost of schoolbooks and clothes, for whom buying Ron > a broom when he is made Prefect is a problem: > marion11111 is too: I don't see how any wizard couple can have two incomes. As far as I can tell, the children are homeschooled until they go to Hogwarts. Maybe they use grandparents or kindly neighboring elderly witches. I suppose Ginny/Harry and Ron/Hermione just packed the kids off to Molly. It almost seems as though wizards-with-money get that way by inheriting vaults of galleons or large houses. And then they never work again. What *does* Lucius do besides bribe Ministry officials? From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:34:19 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:34:19 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177945 Pippin: See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. Tiffany: I liked the ending to DH a whole lot also because it didn't have a "happily ever after" ending to it. I think it's nice that it ended with some unresolved issues & some things being up in the air. I think the coming-of-age themes was a very good way to end the franchise because it was the same idea in Star Wars also, just to name one there. Hollywood endings are nice, but for some stories, it's best to have things end open-ended & leaving it up to the imagination of the reader. I personally love a good happy ending to a story, but there's some circumstances where it's not always the best case scenario. I was at first disappointed with how things ended in DH, but after carefully re-reading it, I was satisfied with it being that way. Before even buying it, I thought we would get the typcial triumphial & majestic ending of good conquers evil yet again & all is right. However, I really loved the Battle of Hogwarts & seeing some key players in other novels be injured in it. After all, when a battle as big as that takes place, a Hollywood ending seems to be a letdown when you consider all that's at stake. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 13 22:40:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:40:01 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177946 > > Betsy Hp: > > Yeah. I'm not anything like Harry. I question. DH, IMO, > > doesn't stand up to questions. It was, IMO, a failure. > > Pippin: > See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. > Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that > European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with > everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort > of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume > that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of > JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. Magpie: Did I get the Americanized Hollywood version of the book then? Because the one I read ain't Bergman. I'm sure JKR considers the flaws in the WW to be flaws the way she always has, but I don't think this makes the ending any more ambiguous. Harry isn't a social revolutionary. He's defending his own world and friends as they are/were. The central issue has always been Harry and his happiness, and in the end he gets that in true Hollywood fashion with a passel of kids hired from central casting. He gets the girl, the sidekicks get each other, everybody has children, preferably with even more people in his little circle. His life's exactly the way it was before only no Voldemort so there's no threat to any of them. I don't see anything not triumphant or happy about that ending just because she didn't include Slytherin and Gryffindors singing kumbaya together while House Elves board the Express as students. Harry's line to his son gives props to poor old Snape who could maybe have almost been a Gryffindor, and harks back yet again to Harry's choice of Gryffindor which has always been a bood thing--remember kids, all you have to do is choose not to be Slytherin. He's no longer disturbed by the hat suggesting he'd have been good in the house. (Kids choosing their house with the hat without interference of older siblings or parents has never been an issue for anyone.) I just don't read the imperfect state of affairs as some indication of darkness. It's just not of primary importance to Harry's happiness and never has been. He's happy in his imperfect world, living his ordinary life. He's got an enviable place in his society. I took "all is well" at face value. How could it not be--look at all the babies they've got. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 01:36:47 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:36:47 -0000 Subject: The Life & Lies of Albus Dumbledore (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177947 > Prep0strus: > You do seem to take everything in the worst possible light for him, > though. It's not that I can't see your interpretation, but it just > doesn't come across that way to me. I wrote a post recently that went > fairly unnoticed (considering how some relatively innocent things get > jumped on - I can just never tell what is controversial) in which I > compared Dumbledore to God. As a God stand in, I think he still fits > pretty well, even after DH Perhaps we are not meant to understand > everything he does, but still accept that he loves and cares for people. lizzyben: Oddly enough, I also proposed that DD is meant to be a God-figure. DH could be Harry's journey of faith - going from doubt, to spiritual crisis, to literally wandering the wilderness, to finally understanding and accepting his role in God's plan. It works pretty well as long as you ignore DD's actual personality. Prepostrus: > Of course, taking away a metaphorical view like that, Dumbledore is a > very flawed human. But really, I still think he's at worst a very > successful Slytherin type. I don't think Dumbledore is > 'power-hungry'. And I don't think he really exercises the power he > does have. If anything, he ineffectually holds back his power at > times when exercising him would bring him more acclaim, more glory, > more power. lizzyben: He also holds back when exercising power would help the ideals he claims to care about. As MOM, he could actually create laws that guarantee rights for house-elves, stop discrimination against werewolves, lessen prejudice against Muggles etc. etc. But he doesn't do that - instead he creates his own circle of power that gives him power without accountability or responsibility. And this is where JKR's essentialism comes back to bite her. If people can't really change, DD can't really change either. He certainly was power-hungry at 17, when he dreamed of ruling over all Muggles, and he was still hungry for power when he keeps the Invisibility Cloak 100 years later. He goes from Muggle-persecutor to Muggle-rescuer, but both positions are essentially ones of power, & that creates a sense of "mixed motives" on DD's part. His real attitude towards Muggles is revealed in the only encounter he has w/them - when DD uses his superior magical power to knock them in the head and force them to sit down & obey his demands. And in King's Cross, Dead!DD admits that power was always his weakness & temptation. DD changes his ideology, but never really changes his character. Prepostrus: > I don't think Dumbledore thinks he is a god at all - I think he is > tortured by his childhood, lonely, and with strong ideals that he is > unsure of the best way to follow. Her certainly does things in a > weird way - but perhaps not as weird for the wizarding world as it is > for our world. There are many things simply accepted by everyone in > their world that would not be accepted in ours. lizzyben: When I say that DD thinks he is a god, I'm mostly referring to the way that he seems to think he has the right to deal out death to people in furtherance of his plans. HE might think it's all for the "greater good", but he doesn't have the right to sacrifice other people for his own goals. He does treat people as pawns, & that's a "god-like" view of the world. Also, the way he wants his supporters to display total personal loyalty to Him, as opposed to his ideals. In COS, for example, he says that Harry earned the sword for his incredible loyalty to Dumbledore - not for, you know, saving the school. Or when he tears up when Harry says that he's "Dumbledore's Man". Or the way that all the other Order adults (former students) seem to obsess on what DD would think, whether DD would approve, etc. instead of just being independent agents. In the end, you get the sense that it's all about DD's ego. Creepy! It's like JKR was *trying* to make DD into the embodiment of your typical cult leader. And here's where I start to wonder if it is some Andy Kaufmann-esque trick. If we were truly expected to admire Harry's devotion to DD, why would she expose DD as a fraud in the last book? Why have his own brother call him the "master of secret & lies"? Why have many so characters point out that DD's plan makes no sense? Prepostrus: > I think Dumbledore truly is concerned with equality, with stopping > evil, and with caring for children. But he's flawed in how he attempts > to reach his goals But I don't believe those flaws are because of > self-aggrandizement, but simply because he does not know the > appropriate path. lizzyben: He's supposed to be a genius, right? I would think that DD would at least know that caring for children involves, for example, not leaving them on doorsteps, or abandoning the school when Basiliks and mad Umbridges are on the loose, etc. > Prep0strus > But this is entirely your rather unorthodox view of the world. You > and other espouse this 'poor-Slytherin' universe which I think is > completely wrong. I don't think he alienates and isolates Slytherins > at all. I think they do that for themselves. There is no 'pitting of > Slytherins against Gryffindor', especially that Dumbledore could > control. lizzyben: I'm not sure how I can be a Slytherin defender if I've agreed that they're supposed to symbolize everything JKR doesn't like & argued that they are meant to be the "House of the Damned". But the thing is, you can't confuse the meta & the text. Sure, on the meta level, Slytherins are "traits JKR dislikes", but within the text, they are real people, real students, and real children in DD's care. My point had really nothing to do w/the "slyths as scapegoats" view, but with "slyths as real children" view, which is the vast majority view. As real children, DD has a responsibility to these kids that he utterly fails. DD brought a psychopathic Riddle to Hogwarts, never warning teachers or students of the danger, let him learn magic, & turned him loose on the world. In the Maurader's generation, Death Eaters were actively recruiting Hogwarts students, & DD did nothing about it. In Harry's gen., DD focuses his efforts on Harry & co & doesn't seem to care much about cultivating other students. These children are raised at Hogwarts. If DD truly cared about ending bigotry, he'd do something to educate these kids, teach them a different way - mandatory Muggle studies, mixing House dinners, SOMETHING. Instead, he is more than content to allow the Gryf vs. Slyth feud to continue unabated, to actively help the feud w/Gryf favoritism, and to write off Slyth kids as worthless bigots. DD stays isolated in his office that no student can reach. He seems to have little to do w/the day to day operation of the school. DD as Headmaster is largely a failure. > lizzyben: > > Other people have gone into the nonsensical plan of DH, so I won't > > repeat that. > > Prep0strus: > Seriously. Sometimes I think I have to simply ignore DH in order to > have a discussion that makes sense about any of these characters - > well, at least the plot. I try to keep in the character > 'development'. This is one of those cases where, even though it is > Dumbledore's plan in the story, my brain has a hard time blaming him > for it, because it's too busy blaming JKR for orchestrating the whole > convoluted mess and putting it into his mouth. It's so weird. lizzyben: That's why I ignored DD's non-plan in DH - I don't know whether to blame him for it, or to blame bad writing. But we've got to interpret the text that's given to us. And I think it is possible to see the non-plan as consistent from a character point of view. To DD, knowledge is power, and he wants to keep that power for himself. So doesn't allow Harry or Snape to know about the Hallows, he doesn't give the book on destroying Horcruxes, doesn't tell Snape about the Elder Wand, doesn't tell other Order members to assist in the Horcrux search, etc. It's worth noting that if things had gone according to DD's plan, LV would have won. DD risked the lives of many people on a totally flawed, over-elaborate, dumb, plan. And I think we're meant to know that. Aberforth (voice of reason) points it out right before Harry makes his noble self-sacrifice. Aberforth says that DD was "master of secrets & lies", that people he cared for tended to end up dead, that he neglected & used people for the "greater good," & that Harry himself might be a dispensable pawn in a clever plan. So Harry (and we) *know* this at the moment when Harry decides to die because DD had said that he must. Are we meant to cheer Harry's faith in DD or be horrified that Harry has agreed to drink the Kool-Aid? I think *both* reactions can be justified by the text. The dissonance is created by the text itself - if we were supposed to admire Harry's loyalty, why would the book spend so many pages establishing that DD could not be trusted? If it were a test of faith, why did DD admit that the charges were basically true in King's Cross? Harry himself asks DD why he made the plan so difficult - and gets a lame answer (to slow him down). DD then flatters & praises Harry as "the better man". It's like.. a journey of faith where the seeker realizes he is better than god at the end. And that's just odd. > Lizzyben: > Mostly, for me, it's the way DD talks to people that > > makes him so delightfully creepy. He seems incapable of having an > > actual conversation w/someone w/o attempting to manipulate them, > > flatter them, put them down, increase control or exercise power. And > > sometimes he'll say things in passing that reveal a truly > > frightening worldview - like when he says that Merope died during > > childbirth because she wasn't "courageous" & didn't love her baby > > enough. Or when he's just in total awe of Harry because he > > can't understand how someone could simply be uninterested in power. > > I think it'll get even more appalling as people go back through the > > novels. > > > > Prep0strus: > You may be right, but all it does for me is make him more > Slytherin-like when I look at it that way. Which is why I get so > amused that people who love Slytherin and see their positive traits > and goodness have a vitriol for Dumbledore. Is it because he's > successful at it? Or just because he's not a jerk while doing it? I > reiterate, I would rather have someone who at least seems to care. lizzyben: And why would JKR make the leader of the Gryffindors the embodiment of Slytherin traits? Cunning, ambition, using any means necessary - that's all DD. Meanwhile, actual Slytherins like Goyle & Draco don't really display those qualities much at all - they're just unpleasant people. Goes back to that Kaufmann-esque thing: if Slyth is all evil & Gryf is all good, why make the leader of the good side an example of the traits of the evil side? Why are we told to admire the "good" leader who has the same traits we're supposed to hate the "bad" side for? Since I tend to like underdogs, I can't help but root for a group that has the entire school, the author, and the universe itself against them. And yeah Snape is a jerk. But your question wasn't "why do people defend Slytherins" but "why do people dislike Dumbledore?" And I've explained why I do. Leaving aside possibly extreme interpretations, the callousness, lies, manipulation, egotism, & love of power is all canon. And even that wouldn't be so bad if we weren't told to admire him anyway. Possibly the scariest thing about DD is that he seems to express JKR's own views on the world. I enjoy DD as a character - as a role model, no way. And some is just personal preference - I'd prefer an honest person to someone who "seems to care", and doesn't. I could handle a conversation w/Snape or Draco or Goyle - w/DD I'd be afraid of being sucked into handing over my life savings! I could understand DD's plan to sacrifice Harry, if he didn't also manipulate him, control him & want Harry to love him in spite of it. > Lizzyben: > > DD talks about "love" the way other people talk about God - like > > some mystical powerful force that they can't understand. He > > attributes Harry's lack of need for power to "love." In the Horcrux > > chapter, he seems to keep confusing love & revenge, as if he really > > doesn't understand the difference. > > Prep0strus: > I think maybe JKR views 'love' and 'god' as the same thing. And may > even view faith in Dumbledore the same as faith in god. lizzyben: But isn't that crazy? JKR views god as a manipulative bastard who throws peoples' lives away, never tells the truth, yet demands absolute loyalty to him? Sounds more like an atheist's view of god. And "love" is embodied in a character who neglected & may have killed his sister, dreamed about domination & power, browbeats Snape, imprisons Sirius, & uses Harry as a sacrifice? No, just no. Prepostrus: > But Dumbledore's instinct is to protect, rather than destroy. To > teach rather than seek more power. I don't think DD plays any greater > a role in allowing Voldy to rise than any other individual member of > society. Voldemort was a charismatic, talented youngster, who > everyone was hoodwinked by, except for possibly DD. lizzyben: It's because DD wasn't hoodwinked that he alone had the responsibility to do something about it. If Durmstrang could expel Grindewald, certainly Hogwarts could've expelled Riddle. When Riddle came looking for a job, why didn't DD call a couple Aurors? It seems like DD did nothing effectual to stop LV the first time at all, besides possibly leaking the prophecy. (Again, he caught a Death Eater outside the door - call Aurors!) And if he knew that Quirrel had LV in his turban (as now seems likely), why didn't he, again, call a couple aurors instead of creating this elaborate Rube Goldberg plan involving three eleven-year-old kids? It's just weird. It contributes to my (admittedly unorthodox) view that DD kind of needed a LV around. DD couldn't (wouldn't) gain power the usual way, but found power instead in his own cult of personality. Just coming out with it - I think DD is evil, more evil than LV in some ways. I think he's a narcissist & possibly a psychopath. Maybe they're both stuck in hell in King's Cross. Just for interest - profile of a cult leader. How much of DD do you see in this description? "The Master Manipulator Let us look for a moment at how some of this manifests in the cult leader. Cult leaders have an outstanding ability to charm and win over followers. They beguile and seduce. They enter a room and garner all the attention. They command the utmost respect and obedience. These are "individuals whose narcissism is so extreme and grandiose that they exist in a kind of splendid isolation in which the creation of the grandiose self takes precedence over legal, moral or interpersonal commitments."(l8) Harder to evaluate, of course, is whether these leaders' belief in their magical powers, omnipotence, and connection to God (or whatever higher power or belief system they are espousing) is delusional or simply part of the con. Megalomania--the belief that one is able or entitled to rule the world--is equally hard to evaluate... In any case, beneath the surface gloss of intelligence, charm, and professed humility seethes an inner world of rage, depression, and fear. The Profile of a Psychopath In reading the profile, bear in mind the three characteristics that Robert Lifton sees as common to a cultic situation: 1. A charismatic leader who...increasingly becomes the object of worship 2. A series of processes that can be associated with "coercive persuasion" or "thought reform" 3. The tendency toward manipulation from above...with exploitation--economic, sexual, or other--of often genuine seekers who bring idealism from below(20) Cultic groups usually originate with a living leader who is believed to be "god" or god-like by a cadre of dedicated believers. Even after leaving the group or relationship, many former devotees carry a burden of guilt and shame while they continue to regard their former leader as paternal, all-good, and godlike. This same phenomenon is found in battered women and in children who are abused by their parents or other adults they admire. The Authoritarian Power Dynamic The purpose of a cult (whether group or one-on-one) is to serve the emotional, financial, sexual, and power needs of the leader. The single most important word here is power. The dynamic around which cults are formed is similar to that of other power relationships and is essentially ultra-auhoritarian, based on a power imbalance. The cult leader by definition must have an authoritarian personality in order to fulfill his half of the power dynamic. ... The Role of Charisma In general, charismatic personalities are known for their inescapable magnetism, their winning style, the self-assurance with which they promote something--a cause, a belief, a product. A charismatic person who offers hope of new beginnings often attracts attention and a following. ... Weber's charismatic leader was "a sorcerer with an innovative aura and a personal magnetic gift.[He] held an exceptional type of power: it set aside the usages of normal political life and assumed instead those of demagoguery, dictatorship, or revolution, [which induced] men's whole-hearted devotion to the charismatic individual through a blind and fanatical trust and an unrestrained and uncritical faith."(7) Thus it is the psychopathology of the leader, not his charisma, that causes the systematic manipulative abuse and exploitation found in cults. Based on the psychopathy checklists of Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare, we now explore certain traits that are particularly pertinent to cult leaders. The 15 characteristics outlined below list features commonly found in those who become perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. 1. Glibness/Superficial Charm Glibness is a hallmark of psychopaths. They are able to use language effortlessly to beguile, confuse, and convince. They are captivating storytellers. They exude self-confidence and are able to spin a web that intrigues others and pulls them into the psychopath's life. Most of all, they are persuasive. Frequently they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or disarm them emotionally. 2. Manipulative and Conning Cult leaders do not recognize the individuality or rights of others, which makes all self-serving behaviors permissible. The hallmark of the psychopath is the _psychopathic maneuver_, which is essentially interpersonal manipulation based on charm. The manipulator appears to be helpful, charming, even ingratiating or seductive, but is covertly hostile, domineering... [The victim] is perceived as an aggressor, competitor, or merely an instrument to be used ... The manipulation inevitably becomes the end-all and is no longer qualified by the reality principle. In other words, there are no checks on the psychopath's behavior -- anything goes. 3. Grandiose Sense of Self The cult leader enjoys tremendous feelings of entitlement. He believes everything is owed to him as a right. Preoccupied with his own fantasies, he must always be the center of attention. He presents himself as the "Ultimate One": enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble. He has an insatiable need for adulation and attendance. His grandiosity may also be a defense against inner emptiness, depression, and a sense of insignificance. Paranoia often accompanies the grandiosity, reinforcing the isolation of the group and the need for protection against a perceived hostile environment. In this way, he creates an us-versus-them mentality. 4. Pathological Lying Psychopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious they are being untruthful. It is almost impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major or minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would be easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called "crazy lying". Confronting their lies may provoke an unpredictably intense rage or simply a Buddha-like smile. These manipulators are rarely original thinkers. For them, objective truth does not exist. The only "truth" is whatever will best achieve the outcome that meets their needs. 5. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt ... Whatever the emotional or psychological source, psychopaths see those around them as objects, targets, or opportunities, not people. They do not have friends, they have victims and accomplices -- and the latter frequently end as victims. For psychopaths the ends always justify the means. Thus there is no place for feelings of remorse, shame, or guilt. Cult leaders feel justified in all their actions since they consider themselves the ultimate moral arbiter. 6. Shallow Emotions While they may display outbursts of emotion, more often than not they are putting on a calculated response to obtain a certain result. They rarely reveal a range of emotions, and what is seen is superficial at best, pretended at worst. Positive feelings of warmth, joy, love, and compassion are more feigned than experienced....They are bystanders to the emotional life of others, perhaps envious and scornful of feelings they cannot have or understand. In the end, psychopaths are cold, with shallow emotions, living in a dark world of their own. He can witness or order acts of utter brutality without experiencing a shred of emotion. He casts himself in a role of total control, which he plays to the hilt. 7. Incapacity for Love As the "living embodiment of God's love," the leader is tragically flawed in being unable to either give or receive love. Love substitutes are given instead. The leader's tremendous need to be loved is accompanied by an equally strong disbelief in the love offered him by his followers; hence, the often unspeakably cruel and harsh testing of his devotees. Unconditional surrender is an absolute requirement. 8. Need for Stimulation Thrill-seeking behaviors, often skirting the letter or spirit of the law, are common among psychopaths. Such behavior is sometimes justified as preparation for martyrdom: "I know I don't have long to live; therefore my time on this earth must be lived to the fullest." Cult leaders live on the edge, constantly testing the beliefs of their followers, often with increasingly bizarre behaviors, punishments, and rules. 9. Callousness/Lack of Empathy Psychopaths readily take advantage of others, expressing utter contempt for anyone else's feelings. Someone in distress is not important to them. Although intelligent, perceptive, and quite good at sizing people up, they make no real connections with others. They use their "people skills" to exploit, abuse, and wield power. Psychopaths are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims. 10. Poor Behavioral Controls / Impulsive Nature 11. Early Behavior Problems / Juvenile Delinquency 12. Irresponsibility / Unreliability Not concerned about the consequences of their behavior, psychopaths leave behind them the wreckage of others' lives and dreams. They may be totally oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they inflict on others, something which they regard as neither their problem nor their responsibility. Psychopaths rarely accept blame for their failures or mistakes. Scapegoating is common, blaming followers, those outside the group, a member's family, the government, Satan -- anyone and everyone but the leader... Blame is a powerful reinforcer of passivity and obedience, producing guilt, shame, terror, and conformity in the followers. 14. Lack of Realistic Life Plan ... Psychopaths also tend to be preoccupied with their own health while remaining totally indifferent to the suffering of others. They may complain of being "burned out" due to the burden of "caring for" their followers, sometimes stating they do not have long to live, instilling fear and guilt in their devotees and encouraging further servitude. This of course is another guru trick. ... Demystifying the guru's power is an important part of the psyche- educational process needed to fully recover.(2) It is critical to truly gaining freedom and independence from the leader's control. The process starts with some basic questions: Who was this person who encouraged you to view him as God, all-knowing, or all-powerful? What did he get out of this masquerade? What was the real purpose of the group (or relationship)? "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds" - Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich, PhD. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 02:48:54 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:48:54 -0000 Subject: The Life & Lies of Albus Dumbledore (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177948 > lizzyben: > > Oddly enough, I also proposed that DD is meant to be a God-figure. DH > could be Harry's journey of faith - going from doubt, to spiritual > crisis, to literally wandering the wilderness, to finally > understanding and accepting his role in God's plan. It works pretty > well as long as you ignore DD's actual personality. > Prep0strus: Just including that to let you know I laughed out loud at the last sentence. :) > > lizzyben: > > He also holds back when exercising power would help the ideals he > claims to care about. And in King's Cross, Dead!DD admits that > power was always his weakness & temptation. DD changes his ideology, > but never really changes his character. > Prep0strus: I agree with this, but I interpret it differently. I think he is afraid of his desire for power. He saw what it did to him when he was young, how it blinded him to the things he truly cares about. And he knows there is that temptation in him - he is talented, intelligent, charismatic - he has the potential to be great, and it scares him. And I think he does hold back even when exercising power would help his ideals, but because he is afraid of giving in that much. I think we have the answer to why he never became minister of magic - because he is afraid of exerting that much power. It is a weakness in him, and has caused him to be less effective than he could be. I think he's torn between wanting to do what is right and wanting to not fall into the trap of seeking power. But while I think at his core is desire for power, he is aware of this, and actively tries to counter it, to live his life a different way. I don't see in him the unfettered desire for power, because I think if that were the case, he would have more of it. It is his struggle. > lizzyben: > > I'm not sure how I can be a Slytherin defender if I've agreed that > they're supposed to symbolize everything JKR doesn't like & argued > that they are meant to be the "House of the Damned". But the thing > is, you can't confuse the meta & the text. Sure, on the meta level, > Slytherins are "traits JKR dislikes", but within the text, they are > real people, real students, and real children in DD's care. > > My point had really nothing to do w/the "slyths as scapegoats" view, > but with "slyths as real children" view, which is the vast majority > view. As real children, DD has a responsibility to these kids that he > utterly fails. DD brought a psychopathic Riddle to Hogwarts, never > warning teachers or students of the danger, let him learn magic, & > turned him loose on the world. In the Maurader's generation, Death > Eaters were actively recruiting Hogwarts students, & DD did nothing > about it. In Harry's gen., DD focuses his efforts on Harry & co & > doesn't seem to care much about cultivating other students. These > children are raised at Hogwarts. If DD truly cared about ending > bigotry, he'd do something to educate these kids, teach them a > different way - mandatory Muggle studies, mixing House dinners, > SOMETHING. Instead, he is more than content to allow the Gryf vs. > Slyth feud to continue unabated, to actively help the feud w/Gryf > favoritism, and to write off Slyth kids as worthless bigots. DD stays > isolated in his office that no student can reach. He seems to have > little to do w/the day to day operation of the school. DD as > Headmaster is largely a failure. > Prep0strus: See, I was kind of with you for a while. I mean, a lot of what you say makes sense, but I don't think it's all Dumbledore's fault. I think he is the embodiment of authority. And so is bearing the brunt of what is natural for the world. And the reason these things exist are plot necessities. Riddle being a Hogwarts student was a necessity. So was the whole Marauder/Snape generation. Again, it's one of those things where Dumbledore is the ineffective authority figure so prevalent in children's literature - because a child's universe is unfair. So often, everything that happens to Harry is unfair, on a Dahl-esque level. Even the way the whole school, as a unit, tends to glorify or castigate him. I see where you're coming from putting some blame on Dumbledore, being the adult JKR has set to orchestrate this world... but then you lose me when you get into your description of the Slyths. I think you're better off not even bringing them up, because your feelings on this appear so strong and out of sync with what most of us see, that it sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't see as how he encourages the feud more than any other teacher, student, or parent. More, I don't see how the feud itself affects Slytherins more negatively than it does Griffindors. Before Harry showed up, Slytherin seemed to be doing just fine - it was Griffindor in a slump. And the Slyths themselves don't seem to mind. Also, your constant references to Gryf favoritism are pretty much unfounded. There's some amount of 'Harry favoritism' - but you go on later to describe all the terrible things DD has heaped on Harry, so maybe those things balance. But DD does not favor the Gryfs, and he especially does not write off Slyths as worthless bigots - as we see in what he says to Harry about Snape, as well as how he treats Draco. DD takes 'hands-off' administration to a new level, for sure, but it is not shown that he takes sides or encourages the feud. > lizzyben: > > And why would JKR make the leader of the Gryffindors the embodiment of > Slytherin traits? Cunning, ambition, using any means necessary - > that's all DD. Meanwhile, actual Slytherins like Goyle & Draco don't > really display those qualities much at all - they're just unpleasant > people. Goes back to that Kaufmann-esque thing: if Slyth is all evil & > Gryf is all good, why make the leader of the good side an example of > the traits of the evil side? Why are we told to admire the "good" > leader who has the same traits we're supposed to hate the "bad" side for? Prep0strus: It is strange. Of course, Slytherin seems to have been a mess from the beginning. Only Snape shows any cunning (really, Voldy might be a Ravenclaw aside from the ambition). But I still think DD does not show ambition - he has put that part of himself aside. lizzyben: > > Since I tend to like underdogs, I can't help but root for a group that > has the entire school, the author, and the universe itself against > them. Prep0strus: You're right. But I still don't think that makes them the underdog. Because they themselves don't perceive themselves that way. They are, by all accounts, rich, privileged, bigoted, nasty, and cruel. So I'm not rooting for them, even if everyone else is also not rooting for them. It would mean rooting for the bad guy in every single book or movie or television show or play... because we're supposed to be rooting against them, and everyone is, including the author. The bullies, the villains, the sleazy businessmen, the pompous jerks... these are the types authors write so people dislike them. At what point does it make sense to turn the world upside down to go against the norm? When the weak little kid who is bullied and has no chance to beat the nasty, popular jerk kid at whatever the story is using as its plot device... the kid is the underdog. By your definition, the jerk is the underdog, because according to the writer and audience, he is destined to fail and have people be happy he failed. lizzyben: And yeah Snape is a jerk. But your question wasn't "why do > people defend Slytherins" but "why do people dislike Dumbledore?" And > I've explained why I do. Leaving aside possibly extreme > interpretations, the callousness, lies, manipulation, egotism, & love > of power is all canon. And even that wouldn't be so bad if we weren't > told to admire him anyway. Possibly the scariest thing about DD is > that he seems to express JKR's own views on the world. I enjoy DD as a > character - as a role model, no way. > > And some is just personal preference - I'd prefer an honest person to > someone who "seems to care", and doesn't. I could handle a > conversation w/Snape or Draco or Goyle - w/DD I'd be afraid of being > sucked into handing over my life savings! I could understand DD's plan > to sacrifice Harry, if he didn't also manipulate him, control him & > want Harry to love him in spite of it. > Prep0strus: And again, I think you take the most negative possible view. Not necessarily unsupported, but as negative as could possibly be supported. I don't think DD is not honest. I think he DOES care. I think he believes love is important. I think when he tries to instill those values, when he tries to spread joy and happiness, he is doing it because he believes it is right, it is how he tries to live his life. But he, like most of us, fails at always being what he wants to be. He has tried to curb his ambition; he has tried to have love in his life. He tries to stay away from temptation but still fight evil. He tries, when he can, to not place emotional burdens on others that he can bear himself. And, he also is still egotistic and too sure of his own plans. He still thinks it may be right to expect someone else to sacrifice themselves for something that matters - just as he expects it of himself. And yet it hurts him to think of them making that sacrifice. There are ways to view him in which he is not perfect, but also not satanic. I don't think he's not being honest when he makes jokes or treats people kindly. I think he's trying to spread joy and be a good person. Being 'honest' does not mean saying anything that comes into your head, no matter how mean. Being 'honest' does not mean expressing every one of your inner demons through nastiness to others. Just because DD is himself flawed and complicated does not mean he cannot try to be civil and good and kind and funny. Just like Snape being flawed doesn't mean he has to be nasty and cruel to children and horrible all of the time. There is nothing 'honest' about bullying - isn't it a cliche that bullies are insecure? A jerk is not someone who is honest. A jerk is someone who puts no regard on other's feelings. And someone who smiles and jokes and talks of love and treats people nicely while still dealing with other issues and flaws is not a big faker - they're a person who cares for others and tries to be not selfish. > lizzyben: > > But isn't that crazy? JKR views god as a manipulative bastard who > throws peoples' lives away, never tells the truth, yet demands > absolute loyalty to him? Sounds more like an atheist's view of god. > And "love" is embodied in a character who neglected & may have killed > his sister, dreamed about domination & power, browbeats Snape, > imprisons Sirius, & uses Harry as a sacrifice? No, just no. > Prep0strus: You may be right. But it's a pretty good view of an atheist's view of god. I mean, people ask the questions - why does god allow cruelty? why do bad things happen to good people? why is god asking something so hard of me? why do i have to follow these rules without knowing why? And the faithful answer back with no trace of irony - 'faith'. They can accept that God loves them, even though bad things happen to them. They can accept their prayers are listened to without evidence. They can follow rules without understanding why, based on faith. It's not really an atheist's view of God. It's the common view of God - it's only the spin put on it, whether it's negative or positive, that will possibly clue someone into whether they believe or not. Neglecting people he supposedly loves? Supreme power? Insisting on absolute loyalty? Requiring sacrifices, big and small? This IS God. But with God, there is a 'reason' that is accepted on faith, why someone might 'seem' neglected. Why it might 'seem' God doesn't care or that prayers went unanswered. I have no idea if this is what JKR intended, and if she did, it's obvious she didn't inspire everyone to have that faith in her writing, or in DD. But you're the one placing the negative spin on everything he does. If it were God doing these things, there would be a 'reason' for it all, albeit unknown. > lizzyben: > > Just for interest - profile of a cult leader. How much of DD do you > see in this description? > Prep0strus: Way too long to answer and respond to each. Yes, some. But again, I think you internalize every negative and reject every positive. And when a character has struck you a certain way, it makes sense to look for supporting evidence. But it's certainly not the only possible view. And it seems to germinate a lot from your desire to go against what the author wants and what the author wants the audience wants. Of course, it certainly makes for a discussion with a lot more varied opinions! ~Adam (Prep0strus) From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 14 02:58:23 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:58:23 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177949 > Pippin: > See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. > Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that > European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with > everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort > of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume > that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of > JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. va32h: There isn't much more "Hollywood" than "Not my daughter you Bitch!" It's practically plagiarized from a big-budget Hollywood film. So much of DH seemed written for the movie. From the pointless action sequence of The Seven Potters to the abounding one-liners in the Battle of Hogwarts (Trelawney throwing her crystal balls and saying "I have plenty more", Ron punching Malfoy "that's twice we've saved your life") to Harry's cheese-tastic line about "I've had enough trouble for a lifetime!" Turn to the camera and wink Dan, I mean Harry! I don't think JKR is evil. I think she was sick and tired of Harry Potter, and just wanted to get it the heck over with. The things that aren't resolved are left so because she just plain didn't care about resolving them, not because she was trying to tell us anything about the state of the world. I never believed "it's all been planned meticulously from the beginning" and I definitely don't believe that "unresolved issues" are really deep commentary on the state of the world. (But what do I know, I'm just an uncultured American.) From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 03:05:42 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:05:42 -0000 Subject: In Sorcerer's Stone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177950 I have decided to start to read the series all over again. I am at a point where two ideas of Dumbledore do not make any sense. **Why in the world leave the child with someone who hates all he is about? There was no guarantee at first that the Dursleys would take in Little Harry. ** It almost seems as though Dumbledore cares not about all the abuse Harry will suffer and he does. **How does Dumbledore expect the spell to hold if he can not be sure if the Dursleys will keep Harry? **Hypothetically, you would figure they would not know when Harry's powers would come to fruition, so why would they treat Harry so bad straight away? How does she think keeping a child she does not want makes her look, as that is all the Dursleys seem to think of is how things make them look. **For some people being so scared of magic they sure take great chances in mistreating Harry, that made no sense. It seems as they are trying to goad him into doing things just so they can yell at him but that is just MO. Please jump in. I wonder how you all feel about thses points? **Oh before I forget why does it take so long for someone who truly cares about Harry to step up and say something on his behalf to the Dursleys? Amanda From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 03:23:07 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:23:07 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177951 > Magpie: > We know he's not above creating laws around his own wishes, his > house is full of stuff that he's supposed to be preventing, and he > gets a pile of tickets for the QWC that are hard to come by by > smoothing over an incident involving a friend. > > I've heard the word "corrupt" used to describe Arthur many times. Magpie, with that logic you can call Dumbledore corrupt too, with all the times he swings things to get Harry off. Unfortunatley even in the Wizarding World money makes the world go around. **So maybe the Weasleys were not as corrupt, but maybe that is because Molly has more scruples than Arthur. **But you also have to remember Corruption has helped even the good guys at key points in the story. ((Even with all the good in the world you have to have some BAD so you can see the GOOD.)) :-) Amanda From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 03:53:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:53:58 -0000 Subject: In Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177952 > Amanda: > **Why in the world leave the child with someone who hates all he is > about? There was no guarantee at first that the Dursleys would take in Little Harry. zgirnius: In light of the revelations in "The Prince's Tale", it is not clear to me that Dumbledore believes Petunia hates anything to do with magic. The last time he wrote to her, he had to very kindly detach her from the notion that she, a Muggle, might be permitted to attend Hogwarts and learn magic with her sister. > Amanda: > **Hypothetically, you would figure they would not know when Harry's > powers would come to fruition, so why would they treat Harry so bad > straight away? How does she think keeping a child she does not want makes her look, as that is all the Dursleys seem to think of is how things make them look. zgirnius: I think it all boils down to Petunis'a feelings about Lily. Once upon a time, she was a somewhat bossy, but loving older sister to Lily. But when Lily left for Hogwarts, that changed. I think the ambivalence she feels towards Harry is rooted in her ambivalence towards her sister. She would not leave her sister's son to starve in the street; nor can she love him, especially knowing he is a wizard like Lily was, and will be returning to that world. > Amanda: > **Oh before I forget why does it take so long for someone who truly > cares about Harry to step up and say something on his behalf to the > Dursleys? zgirnius: Does Hagrid not do this in the first book? The next time an adult shows up at Harry's is GoF, and again Arthur does it (expressing shock that Vernon is not even sayng good-bye to Harry). From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 14 04:05:33 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:05:33 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177953 > > Magpie: > > We know he's not above creating laws around his own wishes, his > > house is full of stuff that he's supposed to be preventing, and he > > gets a pile of tickets for the QWC that are hard to come by by > > smoothing over an incident involving a friend. > > > > I've heard the word "corrupt" used to describe Arthur many times. > > > Magpie, with that logic you can call Dumbledore corrupt too, with all > the times he swings things to get Harry off. Unfortunatley even in > the Wizarding World money makes the world go around. > > **So maybe the Weasleys were not as corrupt, but maybe that is because Molly has more scruples than Arthur. > > **But you also have to remember Corruption has helped even the good guys at key points in the story. > > ((Even with all the good in the world you have to have some BAD so > you can see the GOOD.)) :-) Magpie: Harry's been lucky sometimes to have somebody pulling strings for him. Look at Sirius who, without powerful enough friends, sat in jail with no trial. Corruption has helped the good guys during the story, yes. It's still corruption. Arthur doesn't stand out to me as the guy getting punished for not being corrupt. He's got his own personal justifications and ideas about what it's okay to do, and just sticks to that. I think people--including good guys--would benefit more from less corruption. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Oct 14 05:15:26 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:15:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0710132215x59552f99tda3fdf4d338c876d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177954 Pippin: See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. Lynda: Perhaps you're right to an extent. Although, being from America, I had no problem with the ending of the book and no problem with the camping segment that some seem to find so offputting. Perhaps its that I read a lot of fantasy and I'm somewhat used to characters camping, wandering, questing, etc. so it didn't seem odd to me. And as for the happily ever after, I wasn't hoping for that in the first place. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Oct 14 06:06:32 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:06:32 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: <804353.66358.qm@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > Lorelei said: > I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the > Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to > separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it > was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a > source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading > COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an > important point. > > Am I missing a deeper meaning, or am I overanalyzing :) > > > Pam says: > > I think that they are a counterpoint to the wealthy Potters, Blacks and Malfoys. Without the Weasleys, you wouldn't know that all wizards aren't wealthy. And in truth, the Weasleys aren't in bad shape. They just have a lot of kids, and they're putting seven kids through Hogwarts--for a long time, four at once! One would have to assume that Mr. Weasley earns as much as any other Ministry official of his grade, which is a comfortable living, they just have to make it stretch further. Mrs. Weasley doesn't have a paying job, and she certainly could, but she represents the stay-at-home mom choice. They have less money, but they're happy. I also wondered why the Weasleys didn't have a house elf. House elves are apparently not bought or sold like slaves, and there is no cost associated with them, and nobody seemed to have a moral problem with the concept of house elves until Hermione came along, so why not? > > I think the Weasleys represent JKR's vision of the perfect family, and in her world, where she's been both poor and wealthy, she knows that perfect and rich are not necessarily synonymous. What family would you rather be a part of, The Blacks or the Weasleys? > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Sue: Good thoughts, Pam. Arthur Weasley is a head of Department. He's not some minor clerk. He makes laws. He doesn't get much of an office, mind, and has to share the broom-closet he works in, without even a window. Having worked in the Public Service myself, years ago, I know you don't get paid a lot, even if you're fairly high up. I am probably paid more in my teaching job than some of the people in my old department who have more responsibility than I do. Whatever Arthur does get paid, it does indeed have to go further, with all those kids and a wife who doesn't have a paying job. House-elves are another matter. Ron himself says in COS that they go with big, old homes, and if you're familiar with folklore, brownies (which house-elves most closely resemble in their functions) do seem to be connected with castles and manors and such. They go with the house. Can you imagine one having lived in the Burrow for centuries? Dobby might have enjoyed working there, once free, but the Weasleys wouldn't have been willing to pay him, judging by what they say of house-elves. > From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 12:35:12 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:35:12 -0000 Subject: In Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Amanda: > > **Why in the world leave the child with someone who hates all he > > is about? There was no guarantee at first that the Dursleys > > would take in Little Harry. > zgirnius: > In light of the revelations in "The Prince's Tale", it is not clear > to me that Dumbledore believes Petunia hates anything to do with > magic. The last time he wrote to her, he had to very kindly detach > her from the notion that she, a Muggle, might be permitted to > attend Hogwarts and learn magic with her sister. Snip > zgirnius: > I think it all boils down to Petunis'a feelings about Lily. Once > upon a time, she was a somewhat bossy, but loving older sister to > Lily. But when Lily left for Hogwarts, that changed. I think the > ambivalence she feels towards Harry is rooted in her ambivalence > towards her sister. She would not leave her sister's son to starve > in the street; nor can she love him, especially knowing he is a > wizard like Lily was, and will be returning to that world. > > Amanda: > > **Oh before I forget why does it take so long for someone who > > truly cares about Harry to step up and say something on his > > behalf to the Dursleys? > zgirnius: > Does Hagrid not do this in the first book? The next time an adult > shows up at Harry's is GoF, and again Arthur does it (expressing > shock that Vernon is not even sayng good-bye to Harry). Jenni from Alabama responds: I truly don't believe anyone really knew the hell that Harry went through inside the Dursleys' walls. Ron and Hermione had more facts than the others because he shared more with them. But even they don't know it all. Harry just doesn't talk about it and it's not a topic up for discussion with him. After the Weasleys find out about Harry's neglect and abuse, they arrange for him to stay with them as much as possible during the summer and during breaks from Hogwarts. They knew (from Dumbledore) that Harry had to return to Privet Drive to keep the protection that his mother's sacrifice had put in place active... all the Order did. Moody says so before they leave Privet Drive in DH. I feel that Ginny may know more about Harry's abuse than anyone. I feel that she and Harry developed a very strong connection and when they started dating in HBP, that connection grew. They have both been possessed by Voldy and survived. It tells us at the end of HBP that Ginny is Harry's greatest source of comfort and peace. I think he talked with Ginny and shared more with her than with anyone else. Because she has faced some of the same things he has and is the only one that truly understands what he has faced with Voldy. I think, and this is all just my opinion, that she and Harry both saw inside Voldy's head when they were possessed by him... saw Voldy's memories and hatred... memories of him murdering, maiming and torturing people. I feel that Harry sees horrible images when he closes his eyes... memories from deaths that he has witnessed and images he saw in Voldemort's head. Ginny saw into Voldemort's head too. Images that she saw there replay in her head though the connection to Voldy's mind didn't remain intact with Ginny because she wasn't a horcrux. But IMO, she did see the images in Voldy's mind when she was possessed in CoS. I feel that Ginny is the only one that could ever really understand Harry. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 14 15:03:27 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:03:27 -0000 Subject: In Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177957 Jenni from Alabama responds: I truly don't believe anyone really knew the hell that Harry went through inside the Dursleys' walls. Ron and Hermione had more facts than the others because he shared more with them. But even they don't know it all. Harry just doesn't talk about it and it's not a topic up for discussion with him. Tiffany: I agree that Harry doesn't talk about the Dursleys all that much, esp. in SS. Even though Ron & Hermione know some stuff on the issue, you'll never really know the full story unless someone is willing & brave enough to discuss. It's an issue that Harry would just as well keep out of his thoughts so he can focus on other aspects. Jenni from Alabama responds: I feel that Ginny may know more about Harry's abuse than anyone. I feel that she and Harry developed a very strong connection and when they started dating in HBP, that connection grew. They have both been possessed by Voldy and survived. It tells us at the end of HBP that Ginny is Harry's greatest source of comfort and peace. I think he talked with Ginny and shared more with her than with anyone else. Because she has faced some of the same things he has and is the only one that truly understands what he has faced with Voldy. Tiffany: I felt that Ginny was a very caring & understanding soul on Harry's abuse. He really warmed up to her when they were dating a lot in HBP & they had a very powerful bond, beyond just the typical lovers' bond. She knows what Harry has been through because she's faced it also & she also knows that Harry has faced some scary stuff with LV. From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 14 15:07:01 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:07:01 -0000 Subject: In Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnson_fan4evre48" wrote: > > I have decided to start to read the series all over again. I am at a > point where two ideas of Dumbledore do not make any sense. > > **Why in the world leave the child with someone who hates all he is > about? There was no guarantee at first that the Dursley's would > take in Little Harry. angie: For the protection spell to take effect and keep Harry safe until he is legally able to attend Hogwarts, he must be left with the Dursleys. To have left him in the care of any other family he could have been vulnerable to Voldemort even in his spirit form. DD would have been 100% sure they would take him. We don't know what was written in the letter he left with Harry but obviously it hit home hard with Petunia as she took him in and kept taking him in. > ** It almost seems as though Dumbledore cares not about all the > abuse Harry will suffer and he does. angie: DD does care as we know he "sees" everything, but he cannot risk telling Harry about who he is until the time is right; therefore, he must let Harry grow up with all the difficulties, which in a regretful sort of way, will help to prepare him for the very tough life he will face once he gets into the wizard world. If he had not learned to defend himself against Dudley it is very likely he would never have been able to defend himself against Voldemort. > **How does Dumbledore expect the spell to hold if he cannot be > sure if the Dursleys will keep Harry? angie: He is sure. Petunia kept the boy because he was family and because of something Dd wrote in that letter. She may have regretted it but as we find out later, when DD sent the howler to her reminding her of her promise, she made a promise and she keeps her promises. > > **Hypothetically, you would figure they would not know when Harry's > powers would come to fruition, so why would they treat Harry so bad > straight away? How does she think keeping a child she does not > want makes her look, as that is all the Dursleys seem to think of > is how things make them look. angie: Petunia does not exactly not want Harry. She is just bitter because he reminds her of the "special" treatment her sister got and that she was refused. Also it seems as the series moves on that all children start to develop magical powers at different times so the Dursleys most probably believe that by suppressing Harry immediately they would stop the process and he would never show signs of magic skill. > > **For some people being so scared of magic they sure take great chances in mistreating Harry, that made no sense. It seems as they > are trying to goad him into doing things just so they can yell at > him but that is just MO. Please jump in. I wonder how you all feel > about theses points? angie: They are not actually trying to goad him with the exception of Dudley. Dudley does it because he gets great pleasure from Harry being punished and is very jealous over the fact that he now has to share his home and parents with anyone else. > > **Oh before I forget why does it take so long for someone who truly > cares about Harry to step up and say something on his behalf to the > Dursleys? angie: As I said before, they could not risk letting Harry know who he was before he was able to go to Hogwarts. If he had found out he would have tried to practice magic at any chance he had, we know he is stubborn and adventurous, and this would have only made his living arrangements even worse. Harry had to live with the Dursleys for the protection to be at its most powerful. Could you imagine how terrible that living arrangement would have been if Harry had known ahead of time who and what he was! I would never have told him ahead of time either or sent anything or anyone who would have made the Dursleys treat him even more badly. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Oct 14 15:45:43 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:45:43 -0800 Subject: Possession by Moldievort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177959 In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial of other possible forms of possession? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 14 16:56:24 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 14 Oct 2007 16:56:24 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/14/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1192380984.13.17602.m52@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177960 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 14, 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 zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 19:34:24 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:34:24 -0000 Subject: Possession by Moldievort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both > seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose > all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But > when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT > lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in > excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert > that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are > there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial > of other possible forms of possession? I always thought that LV possessed Harry in OotP differently than he (his Horcrux) possessed Ginny. I don't know if I understand it correctly, but it seems to me that at the ministry LV not only penetrated Harry's mind, but became one with him, body and soul. I don't know how this is possible, but, as it is described in the book, LV disappeared from the Atrium, and Harry felt that "he was locked in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began. They were fused together ..." etc. (p.815-816, Am.ed.) The locket/Horcrux doesn't have a body to possess Harry this way, so he assumes that if it tried to possess him , it would be "the other way" - the way Ginny was possessed. Harry is not in denial, he just experienced one type of possession, and he knows how the other type must feel, so he knows that he is not possessed, because both types are easy to notice :-). JMO. zanooda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 00:44:29 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:44:29 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: <2795713f0710132215x59552f99tda3fdf4d338c876d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177962 > Pippin: > > See, the more I question, the more interesting answers I find. > Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that > European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with > everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort > of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume > that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of > JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. > > Lynda: > > Perhaps you're right to an extent. Although, being from America, I had no > problem with the ending of the book > and no problem with the camping segment that some seem to find so > off-putting. Perhaps it's that I read a lot of fantasy and I'm somewhat used > to characters camping, wandering, questing, etc. so it didn't seem odd to > me. And as for the happily ever after, I wasn't hoping for that in the first > place. Alla: Now of course I cannot mind read, so I cannot say what Americans expect or do not expect from the endings in literature. But if Pippin's statement could be rephrased something along the lines that JKR's ending lies along european cultural tradition, oh yeah I am totally on board with that part. I cannot even make the comparison, since even though I consider myself to be very well read, I do not have systematic knowledge of American literature, it is fragmentary, I say. I am familiar with quite a few works, but I am sure that I have not read quite a few cornerstones, but I am trying to catch on cultural gaps as hard as I can, hehe. Although I never be able to do so completely. So in any event, I also want to reference Magpie's post. Magpie, I find it more convenient for the purpose of my post to summarize your argument, so if accidentally I summarize incorrectly, please just correct me :) I totally agree that for Harry as **just Harry** the ending is happy. He has the gift of the family that he wanted all his life and I was so happy for him. But I guess the second question is whether JKR cared for **other stuff** besides Harry's happiness as just Harry and if she did, whether she just dropped the ball or deliberately left the ending open for those issues. Now, to me it is most definitely there are topics that she deliberately left open. Corruption of the power hungry ministry is one ending that is left open in my opinion. Again, of course I cannot read anybody's mind JKR's included. But corruption of the ministry to me is beautifully done, elegant theme throughout the septology starting from Dumbledore refusing the minister post, showing Fudge incompetence, Sirius' imprisonment, etc, etc. I see the theme that was developed. I believe that it was deliberately left open to show yes; that social changes do not always happen fast (obviously it is my opinion that they are not, but we argued about it in the past and not my main point, just my speculation why it was left open). Obviously, if you do not believe that JKR cares about this theme, for you ending will look happy. For me, it is left open to interpretation. And if one believes that it is open to interpretation, the ending on the society level, then yeah, I see it in complete agreement with european tradition. I will be even more specific and limit myself on something I know very well - Russian literature of the nineteenth century. I mean, resolved endings, WHAT resolved endings? Take any Chekhov's play. I see no resolution, I see uncertainty and wonder for main characters and feeling not needed (one of the main themes in Russian literature) and suicide, etc. I mean, okay, Chekhov's many plays ( Cherry orchid's, Three sisters and some others) may not be the direct analogy to what I believe JKR may have been doing with the ending, but for example his story "Duel", I think quite close. The ending for main characters is I suppose quite happy. I guess. But the society that makes young and talented men waste their lives and come to stupid duels even if later they realized their mistakes, society is not changed, one bit. Oy, I always give "Crime and punishment" examples and War and peace ones, so wanted not to today, but I believe they are on point. I think ending for Raskolnikov is quite happy after all his trial and tribulations - he found God and human love, doesn't he? But I do believe that Dostoevsky also cares deeply for the evil of the society that produces old ladies that lend monies under such outrageous percentage (heee, did many Americans ever consider this evil by the way? It is a question, NOT an assertion. From what I learned and based on Russian cultural tradition Dostoevsky so DID.) Nothing changes in that society at the end except one person (or couple more) changing their views, no? Does the ending of War and Peace happy and resolved for many main characters? Sure it does, but if one will tell me that Tolstoy did not care about serves situation and that he just let that theme to be dropped, I will laugh and loudly, because it is a fact that he did and nothing changed at the end of the book, because NOTHING changed in society, no? Going back to Potterverse, if one believes that JKR decided to just drop house elves and leave them to be happy with giving Harry's sandwiches, well, that is an interpretation. But the one I am not buying. I think it was Mike who was saying that it would be easier to buy that house elves are happy to serve humans if they are treated well, that this is their culture, etc, if JKR would just use "enchantment" instead of enslavement. Totally, I agree, but I am pretty sure that JKR somewhere in the interview compared house elves with slavery and the word is in the book too, no? So, again if one believes that JKR just got tired of house elves storyline, of ministry corruption storyline and only cared about resolving Harry's journey, sure, ending is happy in my opinion. As I said above I believe that especially ministry corruption storyline was developed strongly and consistently from book 1 to book 7. I never for one second doubted the integrity of that arc, I found it fascinating. I do not see it as dropped, I see it as open to interpretation, just as many beloved books of mine leave open to interpretation the events on the society level ? whether it will be resolved or not is unclear. Hmm, it is also interesting about fantasy literature in general. Funnily I have not read any fantasy literature except Tolkien before I came to live in USA. For couple reasons ? it is definitely was not Russian tradition to write in this genre ( sci-fi, sure, fantasy, not) ? now they do, but I do not think it started till maybe fifteen years ago, so it was not that available if not translated) and I was just not interested. I absolutely think that a lot of fantasy books have a tendency to have the ending be both happy and resolved. Sure, not all of them, but I think the vast majority of what I read does do that. I did found JKR's ending much more familiar cultural tradition wise, I sure did. JMO, Alla From ekrdg at verizon.net Mon Oct 15 03:08:14 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:08:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? References: Message-ID: <010701c80ed8$a2b5fe20$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 177963 I started reading the Potter books when the SS came out at the movies. My kids wanted to see it and I was against it. Rather than just say no, I went to see for myself before calling it off limits. I fell in love with it and went the next day for the books. For me, reading the books opened up a whole world of fantasy. I had been a lover of fantasy books as a child and the Potter books brought that world back for me. The idea that this fantasy world was co-existing with our mundane muggle world was thrilling. I could open the book and it was like opening a door to a world. All the different little details that made up the magical world, the way they did things so differently than us muggles...it just sucked me right in. My first trip down Diagon Alley just tickled me pink ! I felt like Harry must have felt, seeing things for the first time. I just loved it. As the series grew and matured, my love for the books did as well. The depth of the characters-their flaws and strengths, the relationships-both friends and enemies, as well as the ever present question- what is going to happen in the next book ? All of those things drove me forward, turning each page with eager anticipation. Kimberly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 04:03:37 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:03:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0710132215x59552f99tda3fdf4d338c876d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0710142103r2e2f3397l1f3d28ce73f80338@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177964 Lynda: I'm going to respond to Alla's post without snipping because it was such a good post, I would have problems snipping it. Does it bother me that JKR dropped some themes? To an extent, yes, but...and this is a big but to me...the series is quite lengthy already. A few things that are in the end minor to the series can be left unsolved. I was not looking for the resolution of the Potterverse to paradise for all magical beings. I expected there to be unresolved plotlines and themes and that's fine with me. I do understand that it is not fine with others. Perhaps, given time to consider and relax and try her hand at other fiction, JKR will return to the Potterverse and "finish" the plots she left behind, but then she might not and if she doesn't we'll be left with what we have thus far. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 15 04:58:44 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:58:44 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh > wrote: > > > In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both > > seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose > > all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But > > when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT > > lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in > > excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert > > that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are > > there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial > > of other possible forms of possession? zanooda: > I always thought that LV possessed Harry in OotP differently than he > (his Horcrux) possessed Ginny. I don't know if I understand it > correctly, but it seems to me that at the ministry LV not only > penetrated Harry's mind, but became one with him, body and soul. Geoff: Canon makes it clear that Ginny and Harry's experiences with Voldemort were different: '"Oh, stop feeling all misunderstood," said Hermione sharply. "Look, the others have told me what you overheard last night on the Extendable Ears -" "Yeah?" growled Harry, his hands deep in his pockets as he watched the snow now falling thickly outside. "All been talking about me, have you? Well, I'm getting used to it." "We wanted to talk to you, Harry," said Ginny, "but as you've been hiding ever since we got back -" "I didn't want anyone to talk to me," said Harry, who was feeling more and more nettled. "Well, that was a bit stupid of you," said Ginny angrily, seeing as you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know -Who and I can tell you how it feels." Harry remained quite still as the impact of these words hit him. Then he wheeled around. "I forgot," he said. "Lucky you," said Ginny coolly. "I'm sorry," Harry said and he meant it. "So... so, do you think I'm being possessed, then?" "Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?" Ginny asked. "Are there big blank periods where you don't know what you've been up to?" Harry racked his brains. "No," he said. "Then You-Know-Who hasn't ever possessed you," said Ginny simply.' (HBP "Christmas on the Closed Ward" pp.441/42 UK edition) '"There is a room in the Department of Mysteries," interrupted Dumbledore, "that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature. It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldermort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests."' (HBP "The Lost Prophecy" pp.743 UK edition) Dumbledore is not implying that Voldemort didn't possess Harry at all, but he was only able to achieve it for a few seconds before he was forced out of Harry's body and mind. So this underlines Ginny's assertion that Harry was not possessed in the snake incident but was merely seeing it through Voldemort's mind. In one sense, Harry was actually possessing him. From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 08:27:50 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:27:50 +0200 Subject: please, can you read this Harry-potterquestionnaire and keep it in mind when you're listing your own questions? Message-ID: <003401c80f05$491a4290$574077d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 177966 Hey Perhaps, someone of you was lucky enough to obtain a golden ticket for j.K. Rowling's "open book tour" in the USA or Canada. Please, can you read this questionnaire and keep it in mind while you are listing your own "things to ask"? I had no chance to obtain a ticket, because I'm not living in the USA or Canada. Thanks a lot by advance for your help! Sincerely, Katty (from Belgium) Questionnaire: 1a: Food is one of the first of five Principal Exceptions to Gamps Law of Elemental Transfiguration (Hermione told this in dh15). Does this mean there couldn't be wishing tables or wishing clothes (cf. Household Tales, by Brothers Grimm: e.g "The Wishing-Table, the Gold-Ass, and the Cudgel in the Sack", "The Knapsack, the Hat, and the Horn") in the Harry-Potter-universe? 1b: What are the other 4 Principal Exceptions to Gamps Law of Elemental Transfiguration? 2: What's the core of the elder wand? 3: Some questions about werewolves: a: How many werewolves are there in Britain? b: How exactly the illness of lycantropy is working? - When and for which creatures (only humans) are werewolf bites dangerous? - What will be the effect on hmans/animals/animagi when they are bitten by a werewolf in his human/transformed form? - In "Fantastic beasts and where to find them", it was stated that only the bite is dangerous for humans, though there wasn't any case mentioned for prooving this statement. c: In HBP Lupin told us werewolf bites are cursed. But how is this curse exactly working? If its working as a virus or micro-organism, the werewolf (either transformed or in his human form) has it in his blood and could give it to others (Cf. the illness of rabies by animals and hydrophobia by humans). If that's the case, why didn't Sirius become a werewolf after his fight with Lupin? Cf. In Prisoner of Azkaban (also in the film), Lupin transformed into a werewolf and Sirius sent him back by fighting him as padfood (his animal form). After that fight, the dog was covered with bites. But Sirius never became a werewolf, although he was bitten by one. If the bite contaminates the blood of the animagus and this curse is working like a virus or micro-organism, the contamination would still be there by the time he/she becomes a human. 4: Some questions about horcruxes: a: How does the proces of making a horcrux exactly work? I mean: is the murder, necessary to make a horcrux, needed to happen simultaneously? If that's the case, how could the murder of the Riddle-family be used for making a horcrux? I thought at the moment of the murders, Voldemort didn't know how to make one. b: Is it necessary for the horcruxmaker to kill somebody by himself, or can he only cause the murder? I thought Hokey killed her mistress by using a poison, so, Hokey committed murder and was the acting person. If you have to commit murder for splitting your soul, houw could Voldemort use this murder for making a horcrux? How did he kill Hepsiba Smit then? c: Could the wand of a wizard become the horcrux of it's owner? d: By making a horcrux, is poisoning someone as usefull as using the killing curse, strangling somebody or another directly way of killing? 5: Is aunt Marge's dog Ripper named after "Jack the Ripper"? 6: Could a blind-born wizard or witch come to Hogwarts and learn magic? He/she can't aim with a wand, nor see something (object, place, ...) in his/her mind, nor read the books. Okay, they perhaps could use wandless magic and non-verbal spells. But these are an advanced use of magic only capable and good wizards can do so. But how to learn and practice this kind of magic without learning the use of the simple one? 7: Could someone do legilimency when he/she wants to read the thoughts of a person who's born blind? A blind born person, don't have visual memories nor visual thoughts: they don't see something "in their mind". 8: Where is Fawkes now, and what will happen with him? 9: Who made (or owned): a: the Mirror of Erised b: the opal necklace (Who cursed this object?) 10: What did the centaurs do with Umbridge after they took her into the forest? How did Dumbledore bring her back? 11: Where could the school "Beauxbatons" be located in France? Could there be any link with the things Hermione said in chapter 1(Prisoner of Azkaban) about her holidays in France? In that chapter, she said: "There is some local history of witchcraft here." And later, in Goblet of Fire, she mentioned she ate bouillabaisse during that holiday. Could that passage in PA (about that holiday) be refering to the Albigenses? 12: In the first chapter of Philosopher Stone, Dumbledore said to McGonagall "I would trust Hagrid with my life,". Is this of any significance, or is this common used? 13: Was Merope a witch or a squib (as her father called her, or was he just insulting her)? 14: Was it significant Harry named his snowy owl Hedwig? 15: How was Dumbledore's portrait created? I mean: there was no painter mentioned and Dumbledore was a very busy man, so it would be difficult to portray him! 16: How is an Imperius curse exactly working? I mean: if e.g. Malfoy has casted the Imperius curse on Mrs Rosmerta, would only he able to control her? If so, when did Draco do this? When did he leave the school? 17: Who's the current headmaster/headmistress of Hogwarts? 18: Who's the wife of Draco malfoy? Did he marry Pansy Parkinson? 19: The polyjuice potion containing Harry's hair turned a clear, bright gold. Does the look of that potion containing somebody's hair tell us something about that person? So, is it significant/important? 20: Some questions about Fenrir Greyback: a: How old is he? b: Who bit him? c: Was he an adult or a child when he received the bite? He seemed to be old enough to have received a wand (cf. dh23), so is this an indication to find how old he was at the time he was bitten? 21: What happened with the Dursleys after Voldemort's defeat? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 16:54:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:54:29 -0000 Subject: Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177967 Pippin wrote: > I...what? Draco did get off the tower. Literally, and figuratively. Carol responds: Right. But not on his own power. DD and Snape together made sure that Draco neither murdered nor was murdered. Then Snape grabbed him by the nape of the neck and half-dragged, half-carried him, not only off the tower but off the grounds. (Meanwhile, he made sure that the DEs did not further harm to Harry and got off the grounds himself.) Since Draco survived to attend school the following year, it seems likely that Snape put in a good word for him to Voldie, pointing out that had Draco not let the DEs into Hogwarts, he, Snape, could not have killed DD. Beyond that, Snape can't say or do anything more to help Draco, who must now be a man and deal with his own situation (he joined the DEs, and, like the young Snape, must pay the consequences). Draco, being Draco, still lacks the courage to rebel against Voldemort (he fears for himself and his family, with reason), but at least he doesn't develop an enjoyment of torture as his friend Crabbe does. That he is weak is no fault of Snape's. At least he's not evil, and he's alive, with minimal damage to his soul (whatever unwilling Crucios and failed, half-hearted murder attempts would do to it). Pippin: > Draco was forced to perform cruciatus curses and so were all the other kids at Hogwarts. Carol responds: Are you sure about that? First-years struggle with Wingardium Leviosa. I can't see them successfully Crucioing anybody. Fake!Moody tells his fourth years that all of them together could point their wands at him and shout "Avada Kedavra!" and he probably wouldn't even get a nosebleed. Bellatrix tells Harry that you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses. The Ministry (pre-Voldie) didn't even want the kids to learn *about* them until sixth year. It seems to me that not even Amycus Carrow would attempt to teach every student in Hogwarts the Unforgiveable Curses (if only because they might turn around and try to use the curses against him), and the younger students or the more timid students or those who lacked the power wouldn't be able to perform them. Neville is speaking from the perspective of a seventh-year. I'm not sure that we can safely generalize from his experiences to those of "all the other kids at Hogwarts." Moreover, he mentions only two, Crabbe and Goyle, both seventh years, who actually enjoy performing the Cruciatus Curse and, by implication, perform it successfully. We do know that Amycus Carrow is teaching other forms of magic besides the Unforgiveables, including some actual DADA spells, because Crabbe and Goyle actually learn the Disillusionment Charm. To speculate for a moment, if Snape is keeping his promise to DD to protect the students, he might very well tell the Carrows to follow the most recent Ministry-approved curriculum, one which maintains an aura of respectability (a la Umbridge's anti-Muggle-born pamphlets and Snape's acceptance speech) and provides a curriculum with increasing levels of difficulty, ensuring that students are not taught spells beyond their ability to perform. Snape would also want to be sure that the students passed their OWLs and NEWTs, which presumably don't yet include the UCs, and didn't kill or torture one another (spill magical blood) in the hallways. If necessary, he could word those orders as the Dark Lord's will, or he could use the Durmstrang curriculum as a model. At any rate, there's no evidence that "all the ... kids" were required to perform the Cruciatus Curse, which not even Harry could perform successfully in his fifth year. (He was thwarted in his attempts to perform it in his sixth year, and only succeeded in his seventh when driven by hatred and a desire to inflict pain.) Luna, BTW, says that she has successfully cast her first Stunning Spell outside the DA in DH; it seems unlikely that she's cast a successful Crucio if she can't even do Stupefy. And I can't see her summoning up the will to cause pain, either. Perhaps it's only the seventh years who were supposed to Crucio their fellow students, and only those who were in detention, IIRC. If they were throwing Crucios around in the classroom, one might "accidentally" hit Amycus. (Alecto used the curse herself but didn't teach it in her Muggle Studies classes.) > > Betsy Hp: > > Really? *Snape* does? I thought it was all Harry. Snape gets him the sword, but wasn't that about all Snape does? (Oh, he gets Mad-Eye killed, for some odd reason. And there was that fortuitous memory dump.) Carol responds: Wait. Snape is responsible for Mad-Eye's death? Explain, please. He Confunds Mundungus on DD's orders and makes him suggest the polyjuiced Potters plan, but he doesn't say how many Potters there will be, who will be involved, or who will ride with whom. It's Mad-eye's decision to ride with Mundungus and Mundungus's own decision to Disapparate, leaving Mad-eye to be killed by Voldemort's curse. And it's Voldemort attempting to kill "Harry" that results in the Disapparation. How Snape can be blamed is beyond me. He was following DD's orders in revealing the time and date of the escape from Privet Drive but suppressing the crucial information about the polyjuiced Potters. As for "that fortuitous memory dump," I'm afraid you've lost me. And getting the sword to Harry is absolutely crucial to destroy that first Horcrux, not to mention that Snape's doe Patronus also leads Ron back to Harry, which saves Harry's life. Snape has also, of course, arranged to have a fake sword sent to the Lestrange's vault so that the DEs (and students) don't know he has the real one. That is not, however, all that Snape does. His mere presence at the school prevents the DEs from taking over all the classes; he retains the old teachers other than the Carrows to be sure that the students actually receive an education and that the Carrows will be resisted as Umbridge was; he closes off all the secret passages so that the students can't sneak out into Hogsmeade and be killed or kidnapped and the DEs can't get in; and he posts Umbridge's old decrees, insuring that the DA will rebel. And, of course, Ginny's, Neville's, and Luna's "terrible" detention allows them contact with Hagrid (who, BTW, is teaching about unicorns this year, so he can probably still get Kneazels and other appropriate beasts). The Hogwarts Express is still running normally, so presumably, the carriages and boats are working as usual. The kids go home as usual for holidays (Christmas and Easter). it's no fault of Snape's that Luna is kidnapped by DEs on Platform 9 3/4. He can only protect her at school (as he protects Ginny by forbidding her from going to Hogsmeade). The kids still have meals prepared by house-elves and safe common rooms that the Carrows can't enter (they need Flitwick's or McGonagall's help to get into the Ravenclaw common room--why Flitwick let Alecto in is a mystery to me). Snape has to keep his cover. If Voldemort suspects that he's disloyal, he'll be killed, and conditions would be much worse at Hogwarts if, say, Yaxley or Dolohov took over as headmaster. And Snape performs one last, crucial act, without which Harry could not have defeated Voldemort. He gives Harry the memory that tells Harry he must fact Voldemort wandless, prepared to sacrifice himself, to destroy that last soul bit (and, though neither Snape nor Harry knows it, activate the ancient magic that destroys Voldemort's power). > Pippin: > Since Snape, like everyone else except the Trio and DD's portrait, is not privy to what Harry is trying to do, Snape's role is limited. I wouldn't say reduced, since what he does do is vital. His role in the book is reduced compared to HBP, which after all is named for him. But it isn't reduced compared to, say, CoS or GoF. In DH he gets the only fully realized death scene in the entire series, which makes him quite important since death is a major theme. Carol: Also, of course, Harry and the others believe that Snape is evil, but JKR us dropping little hints along the way (his Occlumency in chapter 1, the inability of any DEs to get into 12 GP despite his knowing the secret, the doe Patronus, the "terrible" detention with Hagrid, the sword that he sends to Gringotts, the duel with McGonagall in which *she* casts deadly spells and he fights defensively) that Harry is wrong. Snape, unlike any other non-HRH character, gets two and a half chapters of his own, two of them referring to him in their titles ("The Sacking of Severus Snape" and "the Prince's Tale"). He's talked about offpage by everyone from HRH to Griphook the Goblin and Ted Tonks to Phineas Nigellus (another clue that he's a good guy if we read carefully). He's the only character who is publicly vindicated by Harry in front of the Hogwarts staff, the DA, the people of Hogsmeade, and others, and the only one besides DD and Harry's parents for whom a child is named. JKR has to keep him off page except for the first chapter and tiny snippets of information (or misinformation) from a variety of sources until the duel with McGonagall in part because HRH are isolated from everyone and in part because she's preparing Harry and the reader for a dramatic revelation/reversal. We can only see him as he appears to Voldemort, the DEs, and people like McGonnagal and Flitwick who believe him to be DD's murderer (though the adulation of Phineas Nigellus and the reactions of Slughorn and the unnamed Slytherin student who asks where he is indicate that not everyone sees him as evil) until his secret is finally revealed following that highly dramatic death scene (in which he is obsessed with getting that crucial information to Harry) and his spectacular last act of magic (in which he gives Harry a lot more than that one memory, enough to lead Harry to understand, forgive, and publicly vindicate him). For a character who's necessarily offpage for most of the book, he plays a surprisingly important role, more important, IMO, than any other secondary character except Dumbledore. He even gets to speak some last words and have his last wish fulfilled, in contrast to Dobby, who dies needlessly after having completed a heroic act but gets only a wordless last look at Harry. (Admittedly, Dobby gets a private funeral, but circumstances prevent anything similar for Snape. The possibility of a public funeral for Headmaster Snape or his being remembered at a memorial service along with Lupin and Tonks remains open, however.) Unlike Voldemort, he's redeemed by his remorse and his repeated acts of atonement. And he gets a whole chapter to himself after his death, unlike any other character except Dumbledore. Considering that he's already had his own book (HBP might as well be called "Harry Potter and Severus Snape" since Snape is the HBP and, as such and as Professor Snape, gets a lot more page time than the eponymous Prisoner of Azkaban), Snape does very well in DH in terms of importance to theme and plot. He's the only character besides DD and Grindelwald about whom hints are dropped and the only one besides DD who rates a backstory. The resolution of Snape's love and loyalties, even the granting to him of JKR's favorite virtue, courage, is and always has been central to the plot, planned from the beginning, the one mystery held over from book to book with clues parceled out in every volume of the series. (None of which makes him a kind and loving man, or an innocent one, only a crucial and misunderstood character who is finally revealed as worthy of admiration and compassion near the end of the last book.) Carol, who thinks that if we put together the Snape clues in DH we can get some idea of how he kept his promise to DD to protect the students, including Draco, as best he could without revealing his true loyalties, which would have been disastrous From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 15 18:46:39 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:46:39 -0000 Subject: Protecting students (was Snape Reduced (was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177968 > Carol, who thinks that if we put together the Snape clues in DH we >can get some idea of how he kept his promise to DD to protect the > students, including Draco, as best he could without revealing his >true loyalties, which would have been disastrous Potioncat, using Carol's closing comment to open my post: Snape promised the living DD that he would do all he could to protect the students at Hogwarts. Then he is reminded by Portrait!DD to stay in LV's good graces so that the school will not be at the mercy of the Carrows. Imagine having to please LV, humor the Carrows, mislead the DDloyal!teachers and protect the students all at the same time. LV has placed the Carrows at Hogwarts. We don't know what, if any, instructions went with the appointment. Nor do we know who was appointed first, Snape or the Carrows. But Snape can only control them within the limits of his cover. > Carol: snip Perhaps it's only the seventh years who were supposed to > Crucio their fellow students, and only those who were in detention, > IIRC. If they were throwing Crucios around in the classroom, one might > "accidentally" hit Amycus. (Alecto used the curse herself but didn't > teach it in her Muggle Studies classes.) Potioncat: We know that LV makes Draco Crucio other DEs. Carrow is merely imitating his boss. Snape can hardly refuse it all together. So, I believe that Snape has limited the use of Cruiatus on those who earned a detention. He knows the other teacher won't issue detentions in this case, which means only the Carrows will. He hasn't eliminated all the torture, but has cut it back. In "The Sacking of Severus Snape" Snape comments that he didn't know it was McGonagall's night to patrol the halls. Sounds like Headmaster Snape has added new responsibilities to the teachers. They are patrolling the halls looking for rule-breakers. I wonder how many they find? What do you want to bet that he's excused his two favorite teachers from this duty? So we have DDM!teachers keeping the students out of trouble...to the best of their ability. Neville Longbottom is 17, overage, and able to fight as he sees fit. He was scarred by each of the Carrows. But he's just as much a soldier as Fred and George are. I'm not so sure how old Michael Corner is. He was badly tortured for releasing a first year who had been placed in chains. Not too much I can say about this situation. Carol: His mere presence at the school prevents > the DEs from taking over all the classes; he retains the old teachers > other than the Carrows to be sure that the students actually receive > an education and that the Carrows will be resisted as Umbridge was; snip it's no fault of > Snape's that Luna is kidnapped by DEs on Platform 9 3/4. He can only > protect her at school (as he protects Ginny by forbidding her from > going to Hogsmeade). Potioncat: Unless this is a flint, Snape seems to be able to protect the students from the DEs while at Hogwarts. Why else forbid Ginny to go to Hogsmeade? Why did the DEs have to snatch Luna? You would have thought they could have walked into Snape's office and ask for her to be released. Snape must have convinced LV that the school should not "appear" to be DE controlled. Luna is kidnapped but Ginny just doesn't come back after Easter. I wonder if Snape never reported that Ginny was absent? There's a rule you know, and the Weasleys were expecting someone to come to check on Ron at the beginning of the school year. So I think we have some hints that Snape was doing what he could to protect the students. Afterall, Snape learned everything he knows about protecting students from Albus Dumbledore. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 18:53:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:53:38 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177969 zgirnius: > As far as positively characterized Slytherins...what is wrong with Andromeda Black Tonks again, other than that Harry was reminded of Bella by her looks and got off on the wrong foot with her? She and her husband seem to have a good relationship, and have raised a friendly, loving daughter. They work for the good by permitting their house to be used as one of the decoy hiding places. And (seems likely) she raises also a a happy, well-adjusted grandson after her daughter is killed in the war. Carol responds: Exactly. And if we're counting JKR's interviews and chats as canonical or semicanonical, we can confirm that Teddy was indeed raised by Andromeda. The Bloomsbury Online Chat (July 30, 2007) provided the following tidbits about the Tonks/Lupin family: 1) Teddy was raised by Andromeda. 2) Remus was killed by Dolohov and Tonks by Bellatrix. 3) [Teddy Lupin is] a Metamorphmagus like his mother. See Leaky's Post-Deathly Hallows Information Page for a link to the actual interview. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/books/postdh zgirnius: > I find, also, that the 'likable' test is one I do not understand. Likable according to whom? Why is Regulus Black not likable? Because Sirius said bad things about him (and those things did not even touch on likability)? It seems Kreacher liked him. No one else we encounter offers any opinion. I see no reason to suppose Regulus was unlikable as a person. Which I guess makes him negatively presented because he was a Death Eater. Except we have no idea what he did as a Death Eater, other than loan Voldemort Kreacher and then attempt to destroy a Horcrux of Voldemort. On balance, going purely from the information we have, I'd say this moves him into the positive side of the ledger. Carol responds: The "likeable" test is, of course, completely subjective since various readers like Snape, Draco, Slughorn, Regulus, Phineas Nigellus, Andromeda (to the extent that we see her), and even Lucius and/or Narcissa. I don't know anyone who likes Bellatrix or Dolohov or Tom Riddle, but there's nothing to indicate that they were typical Slytherins, either. Regarding Regulus, it appears that Slughorn liked him (and never knew that he'd become a DE) since he would have "liked to collect the pair" (Regulus and Sirius). Kreacher more than liked him: he idolized him, bawling inconsolably when he's given "Master Regulus's locket" and using his name as a rallying cry for the House-Elves. His mother (and presumably his father) loved him. He was the "good son," the dutiful son who proudly displayed the colors and emblems of his parents's Hogwarts house. My impression is that Mrs. Black's loss of sanity resulted from the death of one son and the seeming treachery and criminal behavior of the other. (Kreacher thought that Sirius was a murderer; probably his parents thought the same thing.) Regulus was the Seeker on his Quidditch team (all of whom are waving out of the photograph, not sneering). Though not quite as handsome as Sirius, he had the family's good looks and was probably popular at least within his own house for the combination of his looks and his Quidditch abilities. At least, there's nothing to indicate otherwise. Nor is there anything to indicate that he was unlikeable. His views on the superiority of Pure-bloods were shared by many people, not all of them in Slytherin. (Surely Fudge, for example, was in some other House. He strikes me as a Hufflepuff.) He collected press cuttings of Voldemort much as another boy might collect them for a Quidditch star or a famous singer. (No doubt many German boys did much the same thing when Hitler was a rising politician, not realizing the lengths to which their hero would go to carry out his views.) He decorated his walls exactly as Sirius did, except in rival school colors. Even the sign on his door strikes me as something that a typical teenage boy would put up. Teenagers like privacy and often want to be left alone. Even Sirius calls him nothing worse than "stupid idiot" and speculates that his parents regarded him as "a right little hero" for joining up. He probably thought, much as Draco did, that he was joining a movement that would bring him "glory." All of this we can gather from a photo, a bedroom preserved as it was when he left it (setting aside the ravages of time), a photograph, and the remarks of a few other characters. Add to that his heroic decision to steal the Horcrux (which he thought that Kreacher could destroy) and drink the potion himself, sacrificing himself to spare and avenge Kreacher and, he hoped, make the evil Voldermort mortal) and it's hard to see anything unlikeable about him. I shed tears for him and for Kreacher, and I cheered Kreacher's rallying cry, "Fight! Fight! Fight! for my Master, defender of House-Elves. Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!" (DH 734). The first line seems at first to refer to Harry, but the second makes clear whom he regards as his true master, as does the locket. Prep0strus and other readers are, of course, perfectly free to continue regarding Regulus as unlikeable, but his heroism seems undeniable. For me, he's "a right little hero," not for joining up but for rebelling and sacrificing his life for, of all people, a House-Elf that his brother Sirius wrongly held in contempt. The Gryffindor was wrong and the Slytherin was right. Give me Regulus over Sirius, the arrogant bully who never stopped mistrusting Snape, any day. At any rate, until HBP, except for SWM, Harry sees only the worst side of Slytherin and hears only bad things about them. That they are people like himself and his friends (with prejudices and values different from his own) simply never occurs to him. Draco on the tower is Harry's first glimpse of a Slytherin who deserves his compassion (setting aside the equally important discovery that he doesn't want Draco dead, especially by his hand). Andromeda, though he doesn't consciously think of her as a Slytherin, provides another glimpse of Slytherin humanity, as does the unwilling DE!Draco that Harry sees through the scar connection in DH. Regulus's story provides the revelation that a Slytherin can go beyond pitiable human weakness or the ordinary human love of a mother for her child to genuine heroism, paving the way for the heroism of another Slytherin, a man Harry has always misunderstood and hated, Severus Snape, without whose spying and lying (the epitome of Slytherin cunning) and risking his life, Dumbledore and Harry together would probably have failed to defeat Voldemort. And, of course, seeing Severus's deprived childhood and affection for his mother humanizes him too and helps Harry to identify with him. Whether that also makes him likeable to the reader depends on the reader. (I've liked him from the moment he made that poetic speech about potions that bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses, but that's just me.) By the end of DH, Harry can even appreciate Draco's concern for his thuggish friend Goyle and Narcissa's concern for Draco. They may not be admirable or likeable, but they're human, and their love has overcome their desire to side with evil. Human Slytherins, some few of them heroic. That's a big step forward from the view espoused in the earlier books that all Slytherins are evil Dark wizards who would kill or torture to support the pure-blood supremacy agenda. And it's entirely possible that the new, "diluted" Slytherin, stripped of its pure-blood agenda and any possibility of a future as a Death Eater, might well produce a student or two that Harry Potter's children could actually like. My money is on Scorpius Malfoy, there being no child of Severus Snape or Regulus Black to fill the bill. If Lily Evans could befriend a Slytherin, why not her namesake, Lily Potter? Carol, trying to think of another hero besides the wily Odysseus who would have been placed in Slytherin for his cunning had he been born a wizard in Britain between the founding of Hogwarts and the epilogue of DH From l_i_koenig at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 16:38:53 2007 From: l_i_koenig at yahoo.com (Leianne Steven) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Possession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <245254.98925.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177970 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh > wrote: > > > In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both > > seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose > > all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But > > when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT > > lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in > > excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert > > that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are > > there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial > > of other possible forms of possession? It is possible that because LV was actually possessing Harry, it was different. If you think about it, LV himself wasn't possessing Ginny, his memory and a piece of soul was. ~*~Leianne~*~ The Banana Herself! 2008 Bride Save The Date 08.08.08 Leianne Stevens & Matthew Koenig Are getting married! From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Oct 15 19:30:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: What the Trio did wrong while camping... Message-ID: <17148970.1192476630405.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177971 From: montavilla47 >I have to stop, because when I start thinking of the rudimentary >things you'd do if you were a fugative (like pack a couple sandwiches), >I end up with a million questions. Bart: Here are a few more things that they could have done, and there's no good reason why they didn't: 1) As soon as they learned about the "Voldemort" taboo, they should have referred to Voldemort as Voldy, Morty, or, better yet, Tom, instead of "you-know-who." 2) Not necessarily the Trio, but I would be HIGHLY surprised if nobody was taking advantage of the taboo, by setting up booby traps. 3) Couldn't they have used non-magical disguises? 4) They could have used Slughorn's trick, and find an empty house to camp in. A Muggle disguise on Ron or Hermione, or use of the invisibility cloak could be used in scouting. 5) You can't create food, but you can transmute it. Grubs, worms, and insects are highly nutritious; just turn them into something tastier. Acorns, seeds, etc. could be stored in Hermione's dimensionally transcendental purse. I'm certain that there are a couple of dozen more, or flaws with what I came up with... Bart From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 19:33:03 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:33:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177972 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 DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 5, Fallen Warrior This chapter seems to come in three parts, so that's how I'll review it. Part I ? The Tonks We start out in the mud, Harry and Hagrid are literally in the mud of the Tonks' back garden. After trying to revive Hagrid, Harry passes out and awakens on a sofa in the Tonks' house. Ted Tonks is with Harry while Andromeda Tonks has been fixing up Hagrid in the other room. Imagine the force needed to "mobilicorpus" Hargid inside! Harry finds out from Ted that they had protective charms on his house and that's why Voldemort was forced to break off his attack. Hagrid comes into the room and they both thank their stars to have escaped. Harry breaks off when Andromeda enters the room and Harry mistakes her for Bellatrix - he reaches for his wand which Ted has wisely relieved him of. As Andromeda comes closer Harry sees she's got softer features than Bella, but she's none too happy to have been greeted in this manner. The Tonks worry over their daughter, Dora (teehee), and Harry, suddenly remembering the portkey, promises them he'll have Tonks ? er, Dora (teehee) ? send word. Just as Harry and Hagrid are about to take the portkey, Hagrid remembers and asks after Hedwig. The realization hits Harry hard, tears sting his eyes. Hagrid almost misses the portkey trying to comfort Harry with "She had a great old life". The next thing they know, the portkey has landed them in the Weasley's yard. Part I Questions: 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came in? 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, to label her a "good Slytherin"? 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? 4. Whimsy Question: What did you think of Ted Tonks' description? Part II ? The Seven Potters Regroup Harry and Hagrid are greeted by Molly and Ginny. They sort out who else is back (nobody yet), who should have been back (Ron, Tonks, Fred, and Arthur) and who's suppose to arrive next (Lupin and George). Hagrid downs a bottle of brandy in one gulp, just as a bloody George and Lupin portkey in. They carry George inside, setting him on a sofa and Mrs. Weasley goes to work on his cursed-off ear. Strangely, Lupin drags Harry off to determine it's really him. Lupin's reasoning for this is that they've been betrayed and he was checking for a Polyjuiced Harry. Harry tells his story to Lupin, including his Expelliarmus of Stan. Lupin tells Harry to at least Stun if he isn't prepared to kill! He adds that Expelliarmus has sort of become Harry's signature spell, that's how the DEs knew he was the real Harry. Kingsley and Hermione arrive and Lupin and Kingsley go through their security check again. We learn Kingsley's story ("might've killed one") and that there has been a mass breakout from Azkaban that's been hushed up by the MoM. Lupin tells Kingsley and Hermione about George's lost ear and tells us that Sectumsempra is a specialty of Snape's. After seeing no new arrivals they all head in to check on George. We learn there's nothing to be done for George's ear. Harry has his first urge to hug Ginny. A crashing noise in the kitchen announces the arrival of Mr. Weasley and Fred, Arthur madder than a hornet that Kingsley would delay him with a security check. Fred is at a loss for words for the first time in Harry's memory. George revives and pronounces himself saintlike because he's *holy*. Seeing his twin back to his own self, Fred is back too. Ginny takes Harry's hand and they both head back outside to wait with Kingsley and the rest. Finally, Tonks and Ron come streaking in on one broom. Tonks staggers into Lupin's arms. No security check for these two, it seems. Lupin is described with a "set and white face", and unable to speak. Hmmm. Of course, Ron is mobbed by Hermione. When it's determined that they're both okay, and Ron is praised for some nifty spellcraft, Ginny runs off to tell her folks. Tonks tells Lupin that Bellatrix was really gunning for her; Bella's determination to prune her family tree has been noted. Kingsley tells the rest he has to get back to Downing Street, though he wants to be kept informed. He leaves the yard to disapparate. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley come back out to greet Ron and suddenly Bill and Fleur arrive on a Thestral. As Molly is hugging her eldest, Bill tells everyone "Mad-Eye's dead". Bill tells the story, how Dung disapparated and Voldemort's spell hit Mad-Eye full in the face. The crowd is stunned; Harry couldn't believe tough, old Mad-Eye is gone. The crowd heads back inside to tell Fred and George, who were in high spirits until then. Bill grabs the firewhisky and they all toast Mad- Eye. Part II Questions: 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin failed to check Tonks and Ron? 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find something odd about their whole interaction? 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it did include Dumbledore) 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than George's? Part III ? The Spectre of Voldemort Lupin brings up Dung's escape that seemed to have cost Moody his life. The mood changes immediately from somber to tense. But Bill jumps in and defends Dung. Well, at least he doesn't believe Dung is the traitor. Then Fleur speaks up and says that still leaves someone as the traitor. Harry looks at Hagrid and remembers how he screwed up with Fluffy over a dragon egg. Without mentioning Hagrid's name, Harry now speaks up and announces that he trusts everyone in the room and if someone let slip their departure then it was a mistake and not acting as a traitor to the group or him. This prompts a little father-son parallel from Lupin as he reflects on how James wouldn't "dishonor" his friends by mistrusting them. Harry thinks about Pettigrew's betrayal and gets irrationally angry. But before he can argue Lupin and Bill decide that they have to leave immediately to recover Moody's body before the DEs get there. They depart. All of a sudden, Harry decides he has to leave too. Of course, nobody gets where this is coming from. Harry's scar begins to hurt as he tells them they are all in danger with him there. Molly makes the logical point that the whole reason for the night's escapades was to get Harry safely to the Burrow. Even as Harry continues to protest, Mr. Weasley adds that the whole night's efforts would become pointless if Harry takes off. And still Harry protests as his scar continues to throb. Molly changes the subject to Hedwig and for the second time Harry feels the pangs of guilt over the loss. Hagrid jumps in to brag on Harry beating Voldemort, again. Now Harry tells everyone how his wand acted on its own. How it found Voldemort and shot a spell on its own; a spell that Harry didn't know. Naturally, nobody believes this and Hermione tries to correct him. Then Mr. Weasley tries one of his explanations. Harry is getting more frustrated that nobody believes his explanation and that they are giving him credit that he doesn't deserve. As his scar's pain increases he makes an excuse to get outside. Here he sees the Thestral grazing! Uh yeah. Staring out into the Weasley's yard he reflects on Dumbledore. Dumbledore would've understood. But Dumbledore is dead, as are all his other protectors. Once again, Harry comes close to tears. In this weak moment, Harry gets pulled into the Voldemort connection. For the first time since OotP, Harry is seeing things again from Voldemort's perspective. Voldemort is questioning Ollivander, more like torturing than questioning, I'd say. Voldemort wants an explanation for what Harry couldn't just now get his people to believe had happened with Harry's wand. (If only Harry could forward these visions to his friends like they were email ). Hermione and Ron come out to coax Harry back inside. Harry tells them of his vision of LV and Ollie. Hermione gets all emotional, starts recalling that Dumbledore wanted him to Occlude these visions, and finishes with the lament that Voldemort is taking over everywhere else, "don't let him inside your [Harry's] head, too!" Part III Questions: 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does this sound reasonable? 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it just natural to see something of the father in the son? 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, really, I want to know!) 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was coming from Harry? 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? What did I miss? What question did you have from this chapter that wasn't asked? WOW, this chapter was packed. Injuries, death, H/G reconnecting, traitors in our midst, and the Voldie connection is back. Back to you in the studio, Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next chapdisc, chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pajamas ? Oct 29 From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 19:41:23 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:41:23 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Prep0strus and other readers are, of course, perfectly free to continue regarding Regulus as unlikeable, but his heroism seems undeniable. For me, he's "a right little hero," not for joining up but for rebelling and sacrificing his life for, of all people, a House-Elf that his brother Sirius wrongly held in contempt. The Gryffindor was wrong and the Slytherin was right. Give me Regulus over Sirius, the arrogant bully who never stopped mistrusting Snape, any day. Prep0strus: And I certainly agree that the 'likability' test is one done by each person individually. I can only describe my reasons, not expect them to be a litmus test. When it comes to Regalus... I think we just don't know enough. What we do know is a mixed bag. He appears to have sacrificed his life for his house-elf - showing he regarded him as a friend, perhaps even an equal. And that's awesome. But we did not see enough of him to really know his true motivations and beliefs beyond that. We know he was a pureblood fanatic, which is more than enough to put someone in the negative column in my book. And, not only was he a supporter of these ideals, he was someone willing to join a group that used violence and terror to achieve them. That says a LOT. We don't know what he did as part of the group, whether or how much he became disillusioned, or really anything about him. He was part of a prejudiced terror organization, and he sacrificed his life for a house elf. One terrible thing, one good thing. I guess it's the weight you put on each. I don't know that his caring for Kreacher made him any better of a person in any other part of life. As for Sirius... his treatment of Kreacher, while regrettable, is expected. Sirius didn't know of Regalus' sacrifice. What he did know is that his best friends were killed by Regalus' evil group. That he was framed and put into Azkaban for over a decade because of their supporters. That Kreacher continued to spout the same hateful filth about Sirius and Sirius' friends. And, even when treated kindly by others, Kreacher continued to be horrible and nasty all of the time. And even with this, Sirius was never as cruel as one might expect a man who had been unjustly imprisoned in Azkaban for all those years to be towards someone who shows no regret or change of heart from the evil that put him there. As for never stopping mistrusting Snape? This is a basis on which to judge a person? Not only were they childhood enemies, but Snape had already proven he could play for either side. After HBP, NO ONE continued to trust Snape. Even before then, he was playing for both sides - and you can even make it a positive for Snape that he was able to play his part so well. But I think a turncoat almost always has people who will never fully trust them - even if being turncoat is 'good'. Sirius went away to that hellish prison believing Snape to be part of the group that killed his friends. Then he comes out, emotionally scarred, put on by Snape (who also doesn't trust HIM), with a different world to understand. Plus, let's not forget how horrible Severus was and continues to be to Harry, who is Sirius' godchild and probably the only person in the world who Sirius cares about (well, maybe Lupin too). Never stopped mistrusting Snape? Kind of a feeble flaw, I'd say. Maybe the greatest, most loving, most forgiving, most trusting people could trust Snape (of course, the most trusting people also include Hagrid, who is willing to trust acrumantula, so trust doesn't come with judgment, and a failure to trust isn't always a sign of poor morals or poor judgment). But a man who fought against him as a child and as a man... who suffered more than anyone in his loss of friends and freedom... who sees his beloved godchild continue to suffer under Snape's tutelage... this is not a man whom I will begrudge a little mistrust of Snape. And he trusts Dumbledore enough to let Snape come into his home. Rather big of him, I'd say. And yet, you'd take Regalus, the bigot and terrorist of which you know almost nothing, over him? That seems strange to me. I see no evidence Regalus would be any less arrogant. And there is no evidence he even died any less of a bigot, or any less of a person who believes violence is ok. We know he died a friend to his house-elf, and I won't criticize that. But that's all we know of him. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 19:46:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:46:48 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177974 > Carol responds: For me, he's "a right little hero," not for joining up but for rebelling and sacrificing his life for, of all people, a House-Elf that his brother Sirius wrongly held in contempt. The Gryffindor was wrong and the Slytherin was right. Give me Regulus over Sirius, the arrogant bully who never stopped mistrusting Snape, any day. Alla: Give me both Black brothers in any given day, hehe. I definitely want to voice my agreement not in dislike of Sirius but in liking Regulus. Just to add couple small points. Regulus was a kid when he died, wasn't he? Was he seventeen or eighteenth? I thought eighteenth, but cannot double check Lexicon right now. So, we do not know for sure when he joined, but it cannot be more than two years that it took him to be taken with Voldemort's ideology and then to become so disillusioned that he did all that. Just imagine from sixteen to eighteen, such evolution in views. Poor child. I always thought that Sirius spoke with bitterness when he talked about Regulus and that this bitterness did have the love behind it, just as Slughorn telling Harry that he must not consider him prejudiced covers the denial and shame. Speculating, yes. But OMG I think that Regulus act of defiance stands up with such clarity in the books. I mean, just think he did for ONE house elf more than Hermione ever did for all her SPEW, no? He valued his life more than his own. Yeah, Regulus Black is a hero to me all right. To paraphrase Carol, since I adore Sirius as well, give me Regulus over quite a few Gryffindors for sure. JMO, Alla From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 19:44:47 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:44:47 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: <245254.98925.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177975 Laura: In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial of other possible forms of possession? Tiffany: I know that LV didn't actually gain full possession of Ginny, but his memory & soul did. He had a crumb of his crust, so to speak, to get into Ginny, but he didn't get actual physical possesion in the classic sense. I know in OotP, he had possession of Harry, but it was very brief & LV wasn't in charge for too long. There's a lot of forms of possession, but don't know them all off hand & Harry could've been denying them because he wanted to clear his thoughts & memories of it. Harry could also just be skeptical of the possession experience & wishing to dismiss it as acting out his element. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 19:57:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:57:52 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177976 > Prep0strus: > When it comes to Regalus... I think we just don't know enough. What > we do know is a mixed bag. He appears to have sacrificed his life for > his house-elf - showing he regarded him as a friend, perhaps even an > equal. And that's awesome. But we did not see enough of him to > really know his true motivations and beliefs beyond that. > > We know he was a pureblood fanatic, which is more than enough to put > someone in the negative column in my book. And, not only was he a > supporter of these ideals, he was someone willing to join a group that > used violence and terror to achieve them. That says a LOT. We don't > know what he did as part of the group, whether or how much he became > disillusioned, or really anything about him. He was part of a > prejudiced terror organization, and he sacrificed his life for a house > elf. One terrible thing, one good thing. I guess it's the weight you > put on each. I don't know that his caring for Kreacher made him any > better of a person in any other part of life. Alla: I cannot stand DE ideology, really. But Regulus was so young. I mean, I guess it does say a lot to me that he was willing to sacrifice his life not even for the human, but for house elf. And when I write that, I mean the status of house elves in WW, in how low regard they are. I guess. He was sixteen at the latest when he joined, no? And contrary to Draco he did do some active act of rebellion. I like that, I respect that. Just me. I would NOT justify him joining, but can forgive a teenager for making a mistake, if I trust that I see him making steps to redo it. I guess the fact that him **being** a member of prejudiced terror organisation and **still** sacrificing his life for house elf tells me rather loudly ( IMO of course) that he was disillusioned, since if he would not, I do not see why he would value his house elf life at all. Prepostrus: > As for Sirius... his treatment of Kreacher, while regrettable, is > expected. Sirius didn't know of Regalus' sacrifice. What he did know > is that his best friends were killed by Regalus' evil group. That he > was framed and put into Azkaban for over a decade because of their > supporters. That Kreacher continued to spout the same hateful filth > about Sirius and Sirius' friends. And, even when treated kindly by > others, Kreacher continued to be horrible and nasty all of the time. > And even with this, Sirius was never as cruel as one might expect a > man who had been unjustly imprisoned in Azkaban for all those years to > be towards someone who shows no regret or change of heart from the > evil that put him there. As for never stopping mistrusting Snape? > This is a basis on which to judge a person? Alla: Oh me too with this part. Me too. :) **I** still do not trust Snape, hehe. Not in a sense of him being DD man but in a sense that I would not want any more children suffer from him, so sure I won't judge Sirius based on that. I do not like Kreacher at all. No, him being nice to trio did not help me much. I can tolerate him, but that's about it. Harry is so much better person than me. All that I would remember is that Kreacher helped my only family member die. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 15 20:00:41 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:00:41 -0000 Subject: What the Trio did wrong while camping... In-Reply-To: <17148970.1192476630405.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: montavilla47 > >I have to stop, because when I start thinking of the rudimentary > >things you'd do if you were a fugative (like pack a couple sandwiches), > >I end up with a million questions. > > Bart: > 5) You can't create food, but you can transmute it. Grubs, worms, and insects are highly nutritious; just turn them into something tastier. Acorns, seeds, etc. could be stored in Hermione's dimensionally transcendental purse. > > I'm certain that there are a couple of dozen more, or flaws with what I came up with... Montavilla47: Exactly. I think your best suggestion is non-magical disguises. Dye Ron's hair black. Cut Hermione's. Get contact lenses for Harry and put a baseball cap backwards over the forehead. Or a beret. Or a bandana. Wear Muggle clothes and blend in with the huge Muggle population. Ron's a bit of an oddball, but Hermione and Harry know how to pass a lot better than their pursuers. Hehe. I just realized that Harry gets all up in arms about how Merope doesn't do anything to feed herself when she's absolutely no way of doing that. Which means she isn't properly taking care of her responsibility to her unborn child. I wonder if he has more sympathy for her after he wanders around even more helpless, with the entire Wizarding population of England as his responsibility. Montavilla47 From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 15 21:09:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:09:30 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177978 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Give me Regulus over Sirius, the > arrogant bully who never stopped mistrusting Snape, any day. va32h: Why throw Snape into a discussion about Regulus, who has absolutely no canon interaction with Snape? Sirius' great "flaw" of not trusting Snape is only in the minds of those readers who gauge every character by how they react to Snape. Snape Snape Snape...reminds me of Monty Python's Spam, Spam, Spam. Give me Sirius who recognized that pureblood ideology was wrong over Regulus who was all for it until it personally affected *him* any day. va32h From SMacLagan at msn.com Mon Oct 15 22:05:44 2007 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:05:44 -0000 Subject: Why did you decide to continue reading HP books? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177979 Alla asked: > What I am wondering is what made you stick with the books. Was there > any event, character, just the world in general that made you decide - > oh yes, those are books I am going to wait for, read and reread and > reread :) LondonGranddaughter answers: Two things that grabbed my attention: First was the way the WW works differently, e.g. pictures whose characters move, chess pieces that act out their parts, staircases that realign themselves, etc. Life was breathed into otherwise lifeless items, expanding my own world of imagination. Second was her use of Latin and her descritive labels in naming people and things. I appreciated the planning that went into the names, enjoyed figuring out the meanings and then forecasting how those poeple and things would play out their descriptions. I also appreciated the clean, simple, kid lives they lived. If it had been issue oriented, or if the kids had lived like adults (as they often do in TV and movies) I would never have finished the first book. Thankful that I got to read the first 3 books without waiting, LondonGranddaughter From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 22:09:56 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:09:56 -0000 Subject: What the Trio did wrong while camping... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177980 Bart: 5) You can't create food, but you can transmute it. Grubs, worms, and insects are highly nutritious; just turn them into something tastier. Acorns, seeds, etc. could be stored in Hermione's dimensionally transcendental purse. I'm certain that there are a couple of dozen more, or flaws with what I came up with... Tiffany: The easiest thing for the food is to use magic to make them be something tastier that wouldn't sacrifice the nutitional value of it. Harry & Hermione can blend in with the Muggles easily, so just a simple Muggle wardrobe makeover is needed for them. Ron woudld need to dye the hair without magic & Muggle wardrobe for him. Also, before you send the trio off to the Muggle world, make sure they don't use magic or do anything to give away they're not Muggles. Beyond all that, they're pretty much set to blend in with the Muggle world right off the bat. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Mon Oct 15 22:51:32 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:51:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Possession In-Reply-To: <245254.98925.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <245254.98925.qm@web62301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <688EF2E7-8ACF-43E8-9F6E-B7708C379D82@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177981 On 2007, Oct 15, , at 08:38, Leianne Steven wrote: >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh >> wrote: >> >>> In HBP and earlier books, too, Harry and Ginny both >>> seem to think that when VM possesses you, you lose >>> all remembrance of self and what you are doing. But >>> when VM possessed Harry in OotP, Harry did NOT >>> lose awareness. In fact, he was quite aware and in >>> excruciating pain. Why does Harry continue to assert >>> that possession = forgetting what you are doing? Are >>> there different forms of possession? Is Harry in denial >>> of other possible forms of possession? > > > It is possible that because LV was actually possessing Harry, it > was different. If you think about it, LV himself wasn't possessing > Ginny, his memory and a piece of soul was. > > > ~*~Leianne~*~ > The Banana Herself! > 2008 Bride I would think that if only a piece of VM's soul was possessing Ginny, that it would be weaker than the actual possession that Harry experienced when VM possessed him briefly in OotP. It is true that the latter experience was extremely short, but I didn't get the impression that Harry lost a sense of self or loss of memory. The fact that he can remember this experience should have made it obvious to him that there was a different kind of possession that was possible. And, when Ginny was being possessed by VM's soul piece, there were long stretches of time where she WAS conscious of herself. Does that mean that the soul piece could flit in and out of possessing her? Did she need to be in physical proximity to the diary in order to be possessed? If so, that would be, for VM, a dangerous circumstance. Just when he needed her, she might be off taking flying lessons of some such thing. And, yes, I do remember Hermione saying that you had to only be emotionally close, not physically close. How does that explain the later possessions? At that point she had withdrawn her feelings from the diary - or rather, they had been transformed from affection to abhorrence. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 16 00:36:19 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:36:19 -0000 Subject: Possession In-Reply-To: <688EF2E7-8ACF-43E8-9F6E-B7708C379D82@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177984 Leainne: > I would think that if only a piece of VM's soul was possessing > Ginny, that it would be weaker than the actual possession > that Harry experienced when VM possessed him briefly in > OotP. It is true that the latter experience was extremely short, > but I didn't get the impression that Harry lost a sense of self > or loss of memory. The fact that he can remember this experience > should have made it obvious to him that there was a different > kind of possession that was possible. > Celoneth: I think the difference in reactions had to do somewhat with how Harry viewed his possession vs. Ginny. Ginny didn't know that Voldemort (or someone evil) was trying to possess her, she trusted the diary like a close friend. Harry knew that it was Voldemort trying to possess him and fought against it. By the time Ginny grew scared of the diary she was already so emotionally attached that she couldn't let it go, unlike Harry who Voldemort only tried to genuinly possess for a moment with Harry's knowledge. I don't know about physical proximity, probably emotional proximity is more important but physical proximity probably plays a part as we see the way the locket affects Ron when he wears it. Celoneth From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 01:43:35 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:43:35 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177985 > >>Betsy Hp: > > JKR doesn't even give us that kernel. In fact, you're asking me > > to twist the text and squint at it sideways to see a loving > > reunion that in Genesis was made obvious by actions and tears. > >>Pippin: > Um, did I say there was a loving reunion? Betsy Hp: I thought it implied in the comparison between Jacob and Esau burying their father and Slytherins and Gryffindors attending Dumbledore's funeral. But I'm happy to agree that a loving reunion was never achieved between Gryffindor and Slytherin. > >>Pippin: > There was recognition by our heroes that Slytherins and > Gryffindors should not be turned against each other. That > Slytherins could be excellent wizards and worthy of the most > respectable position in the WW. That the choice of House could be > made perfectly well by the child and the Hat together, and adults > (and older siblings) can stay out of it. > > There is no straining necessary to pick up on that, it's right there > in the text. Betsy Hp: First, when was there ever a suggestion that the sorting didn't occur solely between the child and the Hat? To suggest otherwise would suggest that the Hat could be wrong (unduly influenced), which we've been informed, never happens. Second, I think Slytherins are seen worthy of positions that are kept safely beneath Gryffindors. The lack of equality is strongly implied in the text. A Slytherin may come *close* to achieving Gryffindor- like goodness. But only close. To becoming like a Gryffindor. Which, yes, I don't have to strain to see. It's very much there in all its bigoted glory. > >>Pippin: > What's missing is the soul-searching the heroes went > through to reach that conclusion. > > Harry, of the "saving people thing" didn't even think of saving > Snape. That's not repulsive, IMO, it's tragic. > Betsy Hp: What keeps DH stuck in the mud of repulsiveness rather than rising to the level of tragedy (IMO) is that very lack of soul-searching you mentioned. Harry *never* comes to the conclusion that he should have done something to help Snape. I don't recall any text where Harry thinks he did wrong. Especially when it comes to him mistreating other people. As far as the Harry on the train platform is concerned, everything's great because he's happy. And while I certainly see Harry's happiness as not all that important when his surrounding world is so rotten, I see nothing in the text to suggest that this is what I *should* be seeing. I feel I'm subverting, not following, the author's story. > >>Pippin: > I don't really think it takes effort to see that so much as time to > let the events of the story sink in. It's just coming clear to me > now. > As for what makes it worth the effort, if we are going to go to > all the trouble of criticizing a book and discussing it in depth, > we might as well try to understand it. Just IMO, of course. Betsy Hp: The problem is that I honestly don't see where in the text you're getting your theories. I *like* your ideas and I wish I could see them in the text. But there are too many great leaps required, IMO, for me to take them as something JKR purposefully did. > >>Pippin: > > > > The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show > > that Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the > > central problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it > > cannot secure resources, but every additional member is > > a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Seriously? That's what you were thinking about? > > > > (Boy, I'd love to see JKR faced with that question in an > > interview. Like a deer in headlights, I bet.) > >>Pippin: > > But claiming that a woman who once lived on welfare and is now one > of the richest woman in Britain isn't aware of basic economics is, > well, vastly amusing. Betsy Hp: I didn't think we were talking basic economics. More the socioeconomic factors that helped spread modern man over pretty much every land mass on the globe, and are causing serious race issues in Europe. I do suspect JKR's not got a clue about such things, despite her work-ethic. And I *certainly* doubt that any such thoughts were going through her mind when she wrote about the Trio waiting around their little flat for the next deus ex machina to fall in their laps. > >>Pippin: > > What I got out of the whining was that Gryffindor niceness (and by > extension all niceness) was mostly a matter of confidence that your > basic needs are being met. Betsy Hp: And now I'm hung up on the idea that I'm supposed to think the Gryffindors are nice. > >>Pippin: > Which made me think about why their basic needs weren't being met, > and if I would find out what basic need of the Slytherins wasn't > being met. Which, in Snape's case, I certainly did. Betsy Hp: Well, their basic needs weren't being met because the Trio are all kinds of stupid. And Snape's basic needs *were* being met. Snape isn't "nice" because he's a Slytherin. And Slytherins are just not quite good enough to be "nice". (I mean, hello Malfoy family. Or Black for that matter.) You, know, they're "that sort" of people. Good at some tasks, but you certainly wouldn't want your daughter dating one. > >>Pippin: > > Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that > European novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with > everything resolved. I think Americans tend to expect that sort > of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of it or assume > that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of > JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs. Betsy Hp: Wow. What an incredibly narrow (and therefore incorrect, IMO) look at American literary culture. I presume we're to just ignore Edith Wharton, Henry James, Herman Melville? Even Ernest Hemingway is brushed aside by your overly broad (IMO) definition of "American Culture". Also, you're making the dangerous mistake of assuming knowledge of my own personal literary tastes (as a list member who's not happy with DH). Which, I can assure you, extends far beyond American shores. (Not, I hasten to add, that there's anything wrong or lacking in North American literature.) I do agree, however, that what bothers me about JKR's ending is that I think it's meant to be a "triumphalist ending". Harry's got his girl and his kids and everything's just swell for him. That his world is just as twisted and dark as ever (as revealed by the Slytherin house still being the "icky" house) doesn't even register. A Slytherin came close to aping his betters and that's good enough for our boy. Harry's planted his flag; everyone can go home now. I just don't see anything about the ending that suggests to me JKR means for me to see this as a tale still left to be told. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 04:00:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:00:07 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again (Was: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Carol" wrote: > > > he called her the worst name he > > could think of and immediately regretted it. > > I agree and I think we can all relate to that; we can all recall > saying things we wish we had not. I think the reason it was Snape's > worst memory was not because of James's humiliation of him, it was > because when he said that word he lost Lilly's love. Note that in book > 7 he refused to let anyone use that word in his presence. > > > the unreliable narrator at work again > > I don't see why you say that. The narrator may be a bit too laconic > from time to time, but I can't remember him being downright deceitful. > JKR may be tricky but she plays fair. > > Eggplant > Carol responds: The unreliable narrator is a standard literary device in which the pov character's perspective is inaccurate. It has nothing to do with being unfair (though I suppose you could call it being tricky, just as red herrings mixed with clues are tricky). An extreme example of an unreliable narrator is Huckleberry Finn (who is both the protagonist and the narrator) thinking that it's wicked to help the runaway Jim escape because he's Miss Watson's property. The device can also be used with a third-person narrator who reports events and describes characters from the pov of a character who doesn't fully understand what's happening. JKR does that all the time, particularly with Snape, because she's trying to mislead the reader into believing that he is, or might be, as evil as Harry thinks he is. Examples from various books include Harry's parents supposedly dying in a car accident, Snape "causing" Harry's scar to hurt, Snape "cursing" Harry's broom, Hermione at the Yule Ball as a pretty girl Harry didn't know, the Thestrals as "terrible horses," the narrator's assertion that "[Harry] would never forgive Snape. Never," and Snape "Crucioing" Harry into insanity. The DH descriptions of "Bathilda" that make her appear to be a besotted old woman (as opposed to a snake-inhabited corpse) are also unreliable, reflecting Harry's disastrously mistaken assumptions. Sometimes the unreliability doesn't come directly from the narrator; it can take the form of overheard conversations in which the speakers are either misinformed (McGonagall, Fudge, Hagrid et al. in PoA; Dirk Creswell, Ted Tonks, and the goblins in DH) or misunderstood (Harry's eavesdropping on Snape in SS/PS and HBP). The effect is the same. Unless the reader is alert to contradictory evidence or clues (such as the "cruel" punishment administered by Snape turning out to be detention with Hagrid), he or she accepts Harry's perspective (reflected by the narrator) as true and accurate (despite the many times when the unreliable narrator's comments are almost immediately contradicted, such as the repeated assertions that Harry is going to die from a Crucio or the times when the unreliability is transparent, such as the assertion, reflecting Frank Bryce's pov, that there was no such word as "Quidditch"). Here's just one clearcut Snape example from DH: "[Harry] felt even more cheered at the thought that Dumbledore had had some reservations, however faint, about Snape's trustworthiness" (DH Am. ed. 305)--an assertion based on the false assumption by Harry and Hermionethat DD had not told Snape about the fake sword which, of course, supports the reader's false impression that Snape treacherously murdered DD. (Ron, meanwhile, has the false impression that his sister is in terrible danger from Snape.) The last example I can recall is also in DH, a reference to Dumbledore's "betrayal" of Harry. DD has not betrayed Harry; he has only withheld the full truth from him (and Snape) one last time so that Harry will willingly sacrifice himself rather than fighting back. Only if Voldemort himself "kills" Harry (as DD tells Snape) can the soul bit be destroyed and Voldie made mortal. What he doesn't tell Snape (and Harry consequently doesn't learn till later) is that only by willingly sacrificing himself as his mother did can Harry activate the love magic that will protect himself and others from LV and that the drop of blood will (probably) keep Harry from dying. Once Harry understands the truth about himself and Voldemort and Snape and Dumbledore--once all the mysteries are resolved and Harry's blinders are off (symbolized, IMO, by the absence of his glasses in "King's Cross"), the narrator ceases to be unreliable. That is, even though he's still presenting events from Harry's limited viewpoint, he's no longer basing his assertions on Harry's mistaken assumptions, which have been revealed as mistaken by "The Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross." (Forgive the generic "he": I'm distinguishing the voice of the narrator, who is not omniscient and is sometimes mistaken, from that of JKR, who, in theory, does "know all about Severus Snape," as she claimed in an interview, and about her other characters as well. I say "in theory" because of various inconsistencies in the books and some apparently impromptu explanations in interviews and chats that don't square very well with the printed text.) As I'm sure you know, I did not invent the concept of the unreliable narrator, nor did HP fans invent or imagine what they call the "Harry filter." Many authors use an unreliable narrator when it's important that the pov character be mistaken in his or her judgment of events and characters because of limited or incorrect information and/or misinterpretation based on faulty preconceptions (cf. "Emma," a favorite work of JKR's). Misdirection in all its forms is a standard technique of mystery writers. Since each book in the series contains at least one self-contained mystery, along with the continuing mystery of Snape's loyalties, it's not surprising that JKR often uses an unreliable narrator along with red herrings and mistaken assumptions, erroneous information, half truths and sometimes deliberately deceptive statements in the mouths of various characters to mislead the reader as Harry is misled. Here's a definition from a scholarly website: "UNRELIABLE NARRATOR: An imaginary storyteller or character who describes what he witnesses accurately, but misinterpets those events because of faulty perception, personal bias, or limited understanding. Often the writer or poet creating such an unreliable narrator leaves clues so that readers will perceive the unreliablity and question the interpretations offered." http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_U.html IMO, an attentive reader should question any assertion by JKR's narrator (or any narrator) that clearly reflects the pov character's assumptions rather than objectively depicting an incident or character. In one of JKR's less articulate moments (she reminds me of my mother in the way she interrupts herself ), she stated, "we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all there ? you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of Death Eaters' children." IOW, she starts off depicting a partial view of Slytherin as represented by only three students: Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle--but she's *leading* the reader (through Harry and the narrator who usually reflects his pov) to a particular perception of these characters, especially Draco, which will later change (through HBP and DH), much as she's leading us (through Harry and the narrator) to a particular perception of Snape, which will change as we read "The Prince's Tale." (Even those of us who expected a good Snape were surprised, not always pleasantly, by the revelations in that chapter, which permanently alter Harry's perception of and reaction to the now-dead Snape.) Carol, who thinks that taking a narrator's assertions at face value is dangerous at all times and especially in the HP series since to do so validates Harry's mistaken perceptions From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 04:33:41 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:33:41 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again (Was: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Here's just one clearcut Snape example from DH: "[Harry] felt even > more cheered at the thought that Dumbledore had had some reservations, > however faint, about Snape's trustworthiness" (DH Am. ed. 305)--an > assertion based on the false assumption by Harry and Hermionethat DD > had not told Snape about the fake sword which, of course, supports the > reader's false impression that Snape treacherously murdered DD. (Ron, > meanwhile, has the false impression that his sister is in terrible > danger from Snape.) Prep0strus: Now, there's definitely a lot of misdirection in the books, but to call the narrator unreliable might be a stretch. There might be examples, but when I was reading, I didn't find it too difficult to tell when the narrator was telling us Harry's point of view and when she was not. This example you give is a false one - the narrator is very reliable - she is telling us Harry felt cheered at the thought that Dumbledore had reservations. She is not saying, 'Dumbledore had reservations, and this is when Harry realized it'. She is describing how Harry felt about the thought that Dumbledore had reservations - a very different thing. There's a difference there, and it's meaningful when you read the story. This would only be unreliable if harry did not feel cheered, or if he were feeling cheered about something other than this thought. I'm not sure how confident I am that JKR always pulled this off perfectly, but a narrator showing inside the head of main character is not necessarily an unreliable narrator. It is not like 'Catcher in the Rye', where the narrator, a part of the story, gives every single sentence a filter. Just because everything every character thinks or says isn't reliable doesn't make the narrator unreliable - especially not in this instance. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 05:49:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:49:36 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177988 "Carol" wrote: > Harry's parents supposedly dying > in a car accident If the narrator had said Harry's parents died in a car crash that would indeed be an unreliable narrator, but a narrator saying that is what Harry was told is not a unreliable narrator. A narrator can be ambiguous, he can leave important stuff out, but I can't think of any third person narrator that is an outright liar, at least not in a book that is better than a bucket of warm spit. An author can be tricky but must play fair. Misdirection is great but you've got to be careful, cross the line and have the third person narrator outright lie and your book is crap. > The last example I can recall is also > in DH, a reference to Dumbledore's > "betrayal" of Harry. DD has not betrayed Harry; I very very strongly disagree! Dumbledore did betray Harry, and although it would have pained me a great deal to be so treacherous I would have betrayed Harry too if I had been in Dumbledore's place. In a war a general needs to make lots of very unpleasant decisions. Dumbledore was virtually certain that Harry would die when he fought Voldemort for the last time, but he didn't tell Harry that, and I would not have told Harry the truth either however much I liked him. War is not a pretty thing and some things simply have to be done. Eggplant From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 06:48:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:48:46 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177989 > Eggplant: > If the narrator had said Harry's parents died in a car crash that > would indeed be an unreliable narrator, but a narrator saying that is > what Harry was told is not a unreliable narrator. zgirnius: Thus spake the narrator: PS/SS: He'd lived with the Dursleys almost ten years, ten miserable years, as long as he could remember, ever since he'd been a baby and his parents had died in that car crash. zgirnius: We could, arguably, conclude that the narrator is telling us here what Harry is thinking. But the narrator does not actually tell us that is what s/he is doing. Though really, I find this to be splitting hairs. Is the narration "unreliable" or merely "misleading"? I think there are times when the narrator fails to specify that we are being told Harry's thoughts and opinions rather than Potterverse reality, and many times when we are shown things and told Harry's reactions in such a way that we are led to conclude that Harry's reactions must be correct because they so beautifully mesh with what he and we have seen. And Rowling's comments in her latest appearance suggest to me she knows very well how to do this and has been doing it, particularly regarding Snape and Dumbledore: JKR, at Kodak Theatre Appearance (the front page of Mugglenet has more on the appearance): "Although [Dumbledore] seems to be so benign for six books, he's quite a Machiavellian figure, really. He's been pulling a lot of strings. Harry has been his puppet," she explained. "When Snape says to Dumbledore [toward the end of 'Hallows'], 'We've been protecting [Harry] so he could die at the right moment' ? I don't think in book one you would have ever envisioned a moment where your sympathy would be with Snape rather than Dumbledore." zgirnius: Why? She appears to be saying, because that's how she tried her darnedest to make it seem to us gullible readers, through the way she told her story (narration). From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 07:58:49 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:58:49 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177990 "Zara" wrote: > He'd lived with the Dursleys almost > ten years, ten miserable years, as > long as he could remember, ever since > he'd been a baby and his parents had > died in that car crash. If the narrator had said his parents had died in A car crash that would indeed be a perfect example of an unreliable narrator, and of a crappy book; but JKJ didn't say that, she said "died in THAT car crash"; misleading but not downright untrue. > JKR, at Kodak Theatre : > "Although [Dumbledore] seems to be so benign > for six books, he's quite a Machiavellian figure, > really. He's been pulling a lot of strings. > Harry has been his puppet," she explained. > "When Snape says to Dumbledore [toward the end > of 'Hallows'], 'We've been protecting [Harry] > so he could die at the right moment' ? I don't > think in book one you would have ever envisioned > a moment where your sympathy would be with Snape rather than Dumbledore." Wow, I haven't read that before. If JKR really said that (I hope she did) then she confirms everything I've been saying; Dumbledore loves Harry but he will betray him if necessary. And it turns out it is necessary. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 16 09:51:28 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:51:28 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > Eggplant: > > If the narrator had said Harry's parents died in a car crash that > > would indeed be an unreliable narrator, but a narrator saying that > is > > what Harry was told is not a unreliable narrator. > > zgirnius: > Thus spake the narrator: > > PS/SS: > He'd lived with the Dursleys almost ten years, ten miserable years, > as long as he could remember, ever since he'd been a baby and his > parents had died in that car crash. > > zgirnius: > We could, arguably, conclude that the narrator is telling us here > what Harry is thinking. But the narrator does not actually tell us > that is what s/he is doing. > > Though really, I find this to be splitting hairs. Is the > narration "unreliable" or merely "misleading"? I think there are > times when the narrator fails to specify that we are being told > Harry's thoughts and opinions rather than Potterverse reality, and > many times when we are shown things and told Harry's reactions in > such a way that we are led to conclude that Harry's reactions must be > correct because they so beautifully mesh with what he and we have > seen. Geoff: Yes, but isn't real life like this? I can recall as a child being told certain facts by my parents and would say "Well, I have an uncle who did this or that..." not "I have BEEN TOLD that I had an uncle who did this or that" and then found out later that this information wasn't right. Not that I was deliberately told lies but that I had perhaps got hold of the wrong end of the stick when first hearing about it. I can recall even fairly recently talknig to a relative of my father's whom I had never met before who, after I had made a comment, said "No, no, I think your Dad got it wtong. What really happened was this..." Like Harry. I had accepted that as the correct version up to that point. In the quote from PS, we are seeing Harry's actual point of view, because he had been told the wrong facts by Petunia and he had no benchmark with which to compare it; hence, to him, it was a given. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 11:35:21 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:35:21 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177992 > Magpie: > Did I get the Americanized Hollywood version of the book then? > Because the one I read ain't Bergman. I'm sure JKR considers the > flaws in the WW to be flaws the way she always has, but I don't think > this makes the ending any more ambiguous. Harry isn't a social > revolutionary. He's defending his own world and friends as they > are/were. The central issue has always been Harry and his happiness, > and in the end he gets that in true Hollywood fashion with a passel > of kids hired from central casting. He gets the girl, the sidekicks > get each other, everybody has children, preferably with even more > people in his little circle. His life's exactly the way it was before > only no Voldemort so there's no threat to any of them. lizzyben: I'm considering the possibility that the house-elf, goblin, Slytherin issues *were* resolved at the end - they just weren't resolved the way most readers thought they would be. At the end of DH, Harry & co. have assumed their rightful place at the top of society. In the beginning, Harry & Hermione both wanted to free house-elves, now they understand that house-elves like being enslaved. In the last pages of DH, Harry wants Kreacher to get him a sandwich - he's finally assumed his rights as a slave-owner. Harry's learned how to treat goblins as well - as second-class citizens who can't be trusted & can be double-crossed. Magpie: > I don't see anything not triumphant or happy about that ending just > because she didn't include Slytherin and Gryffindors singing kumbaya > together while House Elves board the Express as students. Harry's > line to his son gives props to poor old Snape who could maybe have > almost been a Gryffindor, and harks back yet again to Harry's choice > of Gryffindor which has always been a bood thing--remember kids, all > you have to do is choose not to be Slytherin. He's no longer > disturbed by the hat suggesting he'd have been good in the house. > (Kids choosing their house with the hat without interference of older > siblings or parents has never been an issue for anyone.) I just don't > read the imperfect state of affairs as some indication of darkness. > It's just not of primary importance to Harry's happiness and never > has been. He's happy in his imperfect world, living his ordinary > life. He's got an enviable place in his society. I took "all is well" > at face value. How could it not be--look at all the babies they've > got. > > -m lizzyben: I found the epilogue somewhat creepy, because on one level it's all about Yay!Happy!Babies!, but on another level it's about power. The Yay!Babies! thing could've taken place at a big family dinner or something & it still would've been cheesy, but it would have been good-hearted. But this epilogue took place at the Train Station, as they're loading the next generation to go to Hogwarts. And the text makes clear that Gryffindors are now on TOP, & Slytherins are the bottom of the hierarchy of society. The Malfoys no longer own a slave; now Harry does. Ron threatens to disown his daughter if she marries a pure-blood, just like the Malfoys stood against marrying "mudbloods". All the Gryffs have intermarried, ensuring no diversity at all. Draco gives a nod of submission to Harry, which is not returned. Being a "Slytherin" is the ultimate taunt for the young kids, & Snape is honored for showing a Gryffindor trait - because Gryffindor traits are what matter now. In this happy epilogue, Gryffindors have triumphed & Slytherin is under their boot. And all was well. It reminds me a little of the Lottery, like all these happy people might just turn around and start stoning a Slytherin. The epilogue focuses on families, etc., but there is an undercurrent of the power play - making sure we as readers know that the Gryffindors have switched to the top of the power triangle (for now). Magpie: Corruption has helped the good guys during the story, yes. It's still corruption. Arthur doesn't stand out to me as the guy getting punished for not being corrupt. He's got his own personal justifications and ideas about what it's okay to do, and just sticks to that. I think people--including good guys--would benefit more from less corruption. -m lizzyben: And I'm not sure that changed. JKR says that Shacklebot became "permanent" minister, and that Harry became an Auror at 17. Now, supposedly Aurors need top NEWT marks & 3 years of training after Hogwarts graduation. Yet Harry becomes an Auror w/o having attended his last year of Hogwarts, no NEWTS, & no training. And he gets the job because of his connection with Shacklebot. The book knocks the Slug Club, but seems to be fine w/powerful people showing favoritism as long as the *right* people are in power. lizzyben From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 05:05:18 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:05:18 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again (Was: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177993 Carol wrote: The unreliable narrator is a standard literary device in which the pov character's perspective is inaccurate. It has nothing to do with being unfair (though I suppose you could call it being tricky, just as red herrings mixed with clues are tricky). An extreme example of an unreliable narrator is Huckleberry Finn (who is both the protagonist and the narrator) thinking that it's wicked to help the runaway Jim escape because he's Miss Watson's property. The device can also be used with a third-person narrator who reports events and describes characters from the pov of a character who doesn't fully understand what's happening. Tiffany: There's a lot of misdirection in the books, even in some key moments in the books. However, saying that JKR is using an unreliable narrator to tell us the story is a bit inaccurate. I've personally not found anything wrong with JKR's narrating abilities when she does so in the books. There's a definite slant to a Gryffindor type of perspective in the novels, esp. via Harry's viewpoint, but because he's the central character in all of the books, it's real sound. I think she wants us as the reader to learn & grow as Harry grows & learns also, esp. in HBP & OotP when he starts to begin to come of age & see the Slytherin house in a different way than what he had before. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 12:37:48 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:37:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710160537g1686e15fk93a6963410f46239@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177994 > > Betsy Hp: Second, I think Slytherins are seen worthy of positions that are kept safely beneath Gryffindors. The lack of equality is strongly implied in the text. A Slytherin may come *close* to achieving Gryffindor- like goodness. But only close. To becoming like a Gryffindor. Which, yes, I don't have to strain to see. It's very much there in all its bigoted glory. montims: OK, I've stayed away fron this discussion so far, but really... All this Gryffindor "goodness" and Slytherin "evil"... I am good, but poor, as is my husband, in jobs we enjoy, that mesh with our principles. In my work I have to acconodate very rich people - lawyers, bankers, etc. They live an entirely different lifestyle from me, and were educated at universities I have never been near, and maintain the principles and values they were raised in. I could not do a lot of what sone of these people do, and live with myself, but that is because I have different priorities. Are they "beneath" me? Am I "beneath" them? Is the lawyer who makes a great amount of money defending, and getting off, criminals, or his opponent who has becone rich by putting away the innocent, evil? Is the doctor who has a huge yacht and several houses because of his reputation as a plastic surgeon, even though some of his patients subsequently die, and most of his patients, in my opinion, need therapy not unnecessary surgical intervention, evil? Because I would not want to do that, and I am good? Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people. They have always existed, they go to the right schools and do the right jobs, and run the country when they are older. While they are young, they are obnoxious. That is the way it has always been. They see each other as good people, and a lot of them do a lot of good in their lives. Others don't. Gryffindors are poor but honest... (drawing with a very broad brush here - bear with me please). Some marry up, some end up feckless and lawless, but basically we are talking about the backbone of the country, who do the normal jobs that keep the world turning. They see each other as good people, and a lot of them do a lot of good in their lives. Others don't. Does it really matter? Betsy Hp: I didn't think we were talking basic economics. More the socioeconomic factors that helped spread modern man over pretty much every land mass on the globe, and are causing serious race issues in Europe. I do suspect JKR's not got a clue about such things, despite her work-ethic. montims: Serious race issues in Europe? Europe is one landmass and one country now, and all "race issues" are the same, and occur in every country in Europe but nowhere else? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 16 13:00:45 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:00:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177995 > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came >in? Potioncat: You really can't blame him. He doesn't really know Ted, and now he sees Bellatrix! I thought it was a nice touch that Harry wanted to apologize, but was uncomfortable about how to do it. > > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black > Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, ?? to label her a "good Slytherin"? Potioncat: Is it Sirius's comment or Draco's comment that places her in Slytherin? But, yes, if she was in Slytherin, then she earns the 'Good Slyherin" seal of approval. > ?? 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? Potioncat: No it wasn't enough grieving for my eyes. I needed longer. But it fits very well in the story. No matter how sad Harry felt, there were people in danger and a war going on. Also, Hedwig's death comes as Harry becomes a man. A fitting exit, since her name may be inspired by St Hedwig, the patroness of orphans. > ?? 4. Whimsy Question: What did you think of Ted Tonks' description? Potioncat: Not at all what I expected! And it serves as well as anything to contrast Andromeda from her sisters. I would like to have seen more of this couple. > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's > check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin ?? failed to check Tonks and Ron? Potioncat: This had ESE!Lupin written all over it. For the rest of his chapter and most of the next, I alternately suspected Lupin or anyone who hadn't been checked. I was well into the book before I decided Lupin was OK. > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to > everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you > annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did ?? that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? Potioncat: It was very suspenseful and worked for me. I had thought, at the end of the previous chapter, that Hagrid was the fallen warrior, so I was expecting something bad. At first I didn??t expect George to survive. > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find ?? something odd about their whole interaction? Potioncat: Well, at a re-read, knowing Lupin is one of the good guys, he just seems very tense. It would be hard to fight along side your wife. At the first time, I wasn't sure and it made him seem even more ESE. > 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you > think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when > their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action > without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it did include Dumbledore) Potioncat: I was angry that he had Mundungus with him. What in Merlin's name possessed Moody to bring Mundungus at all? Did he suspect Confundungus? And if Moody thought the DEs would go after the seasoned aurors, why didn't he and Kingsley have more experienced riders? That was a big risk he put Hermione in. > 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than George's? Potioncat: A hag, a troll and a?K?Kno, I don't. > > > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the > betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does ?? this sound reasonable? Potioncat: Yes. He should have fought. He was the source, though he doesn't know it, and it's sort of ironic that the very thing that helps exonerate him was "his idea" which came from Snape. > > 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second > coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is > being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" > quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it just natural to see something of the father in the son? Potioncat: Sirius and Severus confuse Harry with James, but I think in this case Remus is making a valid comparison. > > 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to > leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? > What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, ?? really, I want to know!) Potioncat: He feels responsible for putting the others in danger. He's right, but so are they. I don??t think he would feel quite the same if he had already known he was a 'pig for slaughter.' His feeling of responsibility is very important for what will play out. > > 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? > Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was ?? coming from Harry? Potioncat: I was as confused as Harry and LV. Reading it now, I see how JKR was setting up the Elder Wand myth. > > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that > matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he > making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That > is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or > had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they ?? *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? Potioncat: Perhaps it would have been more prudent to teach how to tell the difference. > ?? 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? ?? ?? Potioncat: ?? Mice, grasshoppers, garden gnomes? I know, meat eaters don't graze, and I don't know if it's a flint or if they are omnivores. For what it's worth, my dog will graze, especially in the spring. Of course, it's not a good idea to bring her back inside too soon afterwards. > > What did I miss? What question did you have from this chapter that ?? wasn't asked? Potioncat: We know at this point that Snape had given correct information to LV, Did that change anyone's opinion of his loyalty? Who did you suspect was his contact? Do you think Snape thought he was following the real Harry Potter? Thanks Mike, for a great set of questions and summary! From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 14:32:08 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:32:08 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710160537g1686e15fk93a6963410f46239@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177996 Jeanette: Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people. They have always existed, they go to the right schools and do the right jobs, and run the country when they are older. While they are young, they are obnoxious. a lot of them do a lot of good in their lives. Others don't. Gryffindors are poor but honest... (drawing with a very broad brush here - bear with me please). Some marry up, some end up feckless and lawless, but basically we are talking about the backbone of the country, who do the normal jobs that keep the world turning. lizzyben: Well, one problem with that view is that Slytherins/Gryffindors aren't really divided by socio-economic level. Snape was working-class, yet was sorted Slytherin. Riddle was totally indigent, yet sorted Slytherin. You get the sense that the Gaunts are all "Slytherins," yet they live in a shack w/a snake nailed to the door! Not exactly running the world. The Potters are Gryffindors, and they are incredibly rich and one of the oldest families in the Wizarding World. Justin Finch-Fletchley is from a rich aristocratic family, yet is sorted Hufflepuff. I would've maybe agreed w/this view a few books ago, but now it seems like socioeconomic level has little to do with the Sorting - it's character that matters. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 15:09:06 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40710160537g1686e15fk93a6963410f46239@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710160809i2af476a1p276fc2ebbb8b8148@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177997 On 10/16/07, lizzyben04 wrote: > Jeanette: > Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people. They have > always existed, they go to the right schools and do the right jobs, > and run the > country when they are older. While they are young, they are obnoxious. > a lot of them do a lot of good in their lives. Others don't. > > Gryffindors are poor but honest... (drawing with a very broad brush > here - bear with me please). Some marry up, some end up feckless and > lawless, but basically we are talking about the backbone of the > country, who do the normal jobs that keep the world turning. > > lizzyben: > > Well, one problem with that view is that Slytherins/Gryffindors aren't > really divided by socio-economic level. Snape was working-class, yet > was sorted Slytherin. Riddle was totally indigent, yet sorted > Slytherin. You get the sense that the Gaunts are all "Slytherins," yet > they live in a shack w/a snake nailed to the door! Not exactly running > the world. The Potters are Gryffindors, and they are incredibly rich > and one of the oldest families in the Wizarding World. Justin > Finch-Fletchley is from a rich aristocratic family, yet is sorted > Hufflepuff. I would've maybe agreed w/this view a few books ago, but > now it seems like socioeconomic level has little to do with the > Sorting - it's character that matters. montims: yes - I had said I was painting with a broad brush - evidently the houses aren't split by socio-economic criteria, and equally evidently, the real world is. I was trying to draw some kind of a parallel, while making the point that just because a person belongs to one class, or one House, it doesn't make that person evil or good for that reason, and I don't believe that was what JKR was intending to convey, despite some comments I have read which imply that she has written a Slytherin = evil, Gryffindor = good book, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I agree that it's character that matters. I would also add that after my first reading of DH, my head was in a whirl. It was only my second and third readings that settled things down for me... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 15:28:33 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:28:33 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177998 "prep0strus" wrote: > When it comes to Regalus... I think we > just don't know enough. There is some truth in that as we do not have one word of dialog from Regulus. > We know he died a friend to his house-elf, > and I won't criticize that. But > that's all we know of him. Well we know a bit more than that. We know that with the exception of Harry and Dumbledore nobody did more to bring down Voldemort than Regulus. I don't know if he was likable or not but when he died he must have been a good person. > we did not see enough of him to really > know his true motivations and beliefs I am more interested in actions than in motivations and beliefs and his actions were good. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 15:48:59 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:48:59 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177999 "va32h" wrote: > There isn't much more "Hollywood" than > "Not my daughter you Bitch!" Yea, and one of the best lines in the book, I love it! I like Hollywood too. > It's practically plagiarized from > a big-budget Hollywood film. As Pablo Picasso said "Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." Eggplant From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 16 16:51:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:51:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unreliable narrator yet again. Message-ID: <9072099.1192553516991.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178002 From: eggplant107 >If the narrator had said Harry's parents died in a car crash that >would indeed be an unreliable narrator, but a narrator saying that is >what Harry was told is not a unreliable narrator. A narrator can be >ambiguous, he can leave important stuff out, but I can't think of any >third person narrator that is an outright liar, at least not in a book >that is better than a bucket of warm spit. Bart: Douglas Adams would have disagreed. In fact, he went one better; in his text game version of HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY (available for free online play at http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocom.php if you want), the game description frequently lies. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 17:18:32 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:18:32 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178003 > Mike: > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 5, Fallen Warrior zgirnius: Thanks for an entertaining summary and some good questions! > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came > in? zgirnius: Understandable given the shock Harry has just received. (Her reaction was likewise). > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black > Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, > to label her a "good Slytherin"? zgirnius: As per Sluggie, she was a Slytherin. How is she not good? She and her husband volunteered their home as one of the hiding places used in the Order's plan, that's good enough for me. > 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? zgirnius: Yes, there were other oppressing concerns. > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's > check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin > failed to check Tonks and Ron? zgirnius: I thought Lupin seemed suspicious here, yes. Though I suspect I should credit Pippin's eloquent defense of the ESE Lupin theory as much as Rowling's writing. I remember thinking to myself wow, she may be right! > 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become > Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about > Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? zgirnius: It was a logical explanation of how the DEs identified Harry, so yes, I bought it. The statement about Snape annoyed me (still does). How does Lupin know? I want to know! I very much appreciated the irony that it was Lupin that went on about Snape and Sectumsempra and how he wished he could have cursed Snape back. Since of course, we learn in "The Prince's Tale" that he was the beneficiary of Snape's seeming cruelty. > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to > everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you > annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did > that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? zgirnius: I liked the suspense, it was appropriate and effective, for me anyway. I did not have any particular fears about the rest of the group as a result of George, though of course the chapter title did suggest someone would die, so I was still waiting for the shoe to drop. For me personally, the injury to George concerned me in a different way. On top of Snape's seeming betrayal of Harry, this made me wonder whether he might, indeed, really be a bad guy. There was a marked lack of violence in his characterization up to that point, IMO. Having him injure one of the kids seemed like something Rowling would only do if he was a villain. (It was, we learned later, an accident, but that did not cross my mind as an explanation at the time). > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find > something odd about their whole interaction? zgirnius: Yes, though I could not put a finger on it. I'm still not suire what I think about this whole relationship. > 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you > think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when > their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action > without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it > did include Dumbledore) zgirnius: I had no idea it would be Mad-Eye. But I did think that the loss of such a skilled and tough character who had survived so much was definitely an indication that things were getting ugly and would stay that way. > 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than George's? zgirnius: Nope, sorry, I am hoping the more comically gifted among us take a crack at your whimsy questions, though. > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the > betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does > this sound reasonable? zgirnius: Yes, in a limited way. Dung didn't kill him, but his actions doubtless increased the danger. > 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second > coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is > being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" > quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it > just natural to see something of the father in the son? zgirnius: It is natural, but I don't think it was a particularly constructive thing to say to Harry under the circumstances. I found Lupin's help and advice more annoying than helpful, in this book. > 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to > leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? > What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, > really, I want to know!) zgirnius: I found it consistent with his initial objection to the plan. He is not comfortable putting others at risk by his presence. > 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? > Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was > coming from Harry? zgirnius: Yes, I definitely thought the weird behavior of the wand meant something and would be explained later in some way that would further the plot. I did believe it was the wand; I saw no reason to doubt Harry's perception of what happened and was a trifle surprised when none of the characters seemed to see it my way. Harry seems quite aware of both his purposeful and accidental magic. > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that > matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he > making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That > is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or > had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they > *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? zgirnius: He was told they could be fake visions to make him `do things'. He just did not like the messenger. > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? zgirnius: Aha! One I can answer. I wrote a pre-DH fanfic in which Thestrals exhibited this odd behavior. In my fic, they were licking blood off the grass. So, the thestral must have been grazing on a spot where poor George dripped before they got him inside and bandaged up. From ronale7 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 17:42:04 2007 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:42:04 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178004 Hi, I've been trying to find the chapter discussions for book 5, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and can't even figure out how to contact a list elf. What I'd like is a list of the message numbers that discussed each chapter. No matter what I try, I'm totally in the dark. Anyone got a light? Ronale7 From katrinawitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 17:47:46 2007 From: katrinawitch at yahoo.com (katrinawitch) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:47:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178005 Good questions, Mike! This is my first time chiming in on the chapter discussions... > Chapter 5, Fallen Warrior > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came in? I don't think it was out of the ordinary... Harry has so many reasons to despise Bellatrix, and I think that seeing her sister for the first time unexpectedly would startle him into action. > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black > Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, to label her a "good Slytherin"? Who's to say Andromeda was a Slytherin? Even though she was a Black by birth, it seems she was one of the "nice" Blacks (who, like Sirius, didn't follow the family's pure-blood entitlement reasoning). Maybe she was sorted into another house because she was different from most of the family. We just don't know. At any rate, "Dora" Tonks is sweet, so it stands to reason that her parents are good, as well. > 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? I understand that it was a war situation, and life goes on, but Hedwig's death wasn't discussed among the Trio at all (at least on- page). This was slightly disappointing to me. I know the reasoning behind Hedwig's death in the books (e.g. Harry's last link to his childhood), but I thought she deserved a tiny bit more. > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's > check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin > failed to check Tonks and Ron? It makes sense that the Order would need to do some sort of Security check, but Lupin seemed a bit out of character in this book, quite suddenly, that all of his scenes had a bit of falseness in them for me. > 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become > Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about > Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? It totally makes sense, and I didn't even think of it until it was mentioned in this chapter. Even in war, it's kind of sweet and funny that Harry still doesn't really want to take the chance of harming people that may or may not be innocent. Do we know if Snape invented Sectumsempra? He definitely knows how cure that spell's damage. However, we've only seen him use it once, in this chapter. > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to > everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you > annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? This was one of my absolute favorite chapters in all of the books! I think the suspense was just right, and I was on the edge of my seat, even reading ahead a bit. I knew that someone had to at least be injured (if not die), and when it turned out to be George, I figured that the Twins would be safe for the remainder of the book (they are among my favorite characters, so the ending was sad, although I had a Twin pegged for death leading up to this book). > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find something odd about their whole interaction? Again, Lupin seemed so out of character to me for this whole book. He was always so kindly before, even under stressful situations. I realize the reasoning behind this, but it still range false to me. > 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you > think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it did include Dumbledore) I didn't see it coming, but it makes sense that it would be Mad-Eye, since he was the most skilled Auror, and that the DE's would target him more. I can see that the Order had to go on without him, but they seemed more scattered and fragmented afterwards, without a true leader. > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the > betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does this sound reasonable? Stinkin' Dung! Why did they even bring him along? Even though he may not have been a traitor, he obviously didn't want to be there, and knowing his personality, it seems totally in character for him to take off and leave the others to Voldemort's mercy. > 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it just natural to see something of the father in the son? It's natural to see something of James in Harry, but I think Remus' doubts about his marriage to Tonks and his impending fatherhood brought out this trait in him moreso than before. I think those responsibilities weighed heavily on him here. > 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to > leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? > What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? Harry at times seems to feel responsible for practically the whole war! He truly doesn't want anyone else he cares for get hurt, and thinks that the best way to prevent this is to immediately leave. His motives are always true, and he's always looking out for everyone else over himself (e.g. the "saving people thing", which I don't think is truly irrational). This comes to play at the end of the book in the King's Cross chapter, when he has a choice to either stay dead and at peace, or return and fight Riddle. > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? Although I love Hermione, her nagging really gets to me at times. I often don't know how Harry stands it! We now know that Voldemort fears using the connection between him and Harry, due to Harry's good emotions, but does Harry know this? I can't remember. If so, I would have expected him to tell Hermione this. At any rate, the visions proved very helpful to the Trio in the end. > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? Do Thestrals eat grass? We know from OOP that they eat meat! Maybe they're omnivores? Given all the gnomes in the Weasley garden, maybe the grass is really lush (gnome poop is a very desirable fertilizer!) Katrina From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 17:27:55 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:27:55 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178006 va32h: There isn't much more "Hollywood" than "Not my daughter you Bitch!" Tiffany: I agree that the one-liners & snappy comebacks are practically made for a Hollywood big budget blockbuster. I also think that the Seven Potters at first was a good idea to have in DH, but after a while, it seemed like an unneeded storyline. I'm not saying I don't believe it's not a good idea, but just seemed to be overemphasized, when other ideas could've been brought up & focused on more. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 18:11:44 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:11:44 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710160809i2af476a1p276fc2ebbb8b8148@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178007 > >>Jeanette: > > Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people. > > > > Gryffindors are poor but honest... (drawing with a very broad > > brush here - bear with me please). > > > >>lizzyben: > > Well, one problem with that view is that Slytherins/Gryffindors > > aren't really divided by socio-economic level. > > > > I would've maybe agreed w/this view a few books ago, but > > now it seems like socioeconomic level has little to do with the > > Sorting - it's character that matters. > >>montims: > yes - I had said I was painting with a broad brush - evidently the > houses aren't split by socio-economic criteria, and equally > evidently, the real world is. > Betsy Hp: The thing is, IMO, Slytherin is made up of everything JKR finds bad about people. If a Slytherin is rich, they're the bad kind of rich (snobby, elitist, etc.). If they're poor, they're the bad kind of poor (ignorant, greedy, etc.). And the reverse is meant to be true of the Gryffindors. Honestly, this is part of the reason I really dislike the underlying message of the books. It's incredibly devisive. "Are there people who aren't like you? Do you dislike them? Well, take heart dear reader. They aren't quite as human as you and you can totally stomp them if you so desire. Because it's totally awesome (and reliable!) to judge people's worth based on how much you personally like them." IMO, while it can seem to come down to character, the fact that our "good guys" behaved in some rather questionable ways but somehow still managed to maintain (as per the author) their patina of goodness, implied (IMO) that their "goodness" was established at the Sorting. In other words, you don't really have to look at a person's behavior to judge them, just look at the color of their tie. (Dumbledore's "sort too early" comment to Snape also puts forth that point of view, I think.) > >>va32h: > > There isn't much more "Hollywood" than > > "Not my daughter you Bitch!" > >>eggplant: > Yea, and one of the best lines in the book, I love it! I like > Hollywood too. Betsy Hp: Exactly. JKR wrote a very Hollywood-esque story with what I think she meant to be a very Hollywood-esque ending (music swelling, etc.). So this idea that she meant for the apparent remaining rotteness to be noticed and commented on by her readers is one I just cannot see reflected in the text. [at bit of an OT clarification] > >>Betsy Hp: > > I didn't think we were talking basic economics. More the > > socioeconomic factors that helped spread modern man over pretty > > much every land mass on the globe, and are causing serious race > > issues in Europe. > > > >>montims: > Serious race issues in Europe? Europe is one landmass and one > country now, and all "race issues" are the same, and occur in every > country in Europe but nowhere else? Betsy Hp: I was referring to the socio-economic pressures that pushed modern man (as opposed to say, Neanderthal) out of Africa, along the coast lines and then inland as populations grew. And then I was also referring to the declining birth-rates that's caused several European countries to bring in outside labor culminating (as per certain views, anyway) in various race issues, including the riots in Paris several months ago. Basically I was just referring to two examples of the sort of pressures Pippin was suggesting the Trio were under during their extended camping trip. Certainly, the world is full of examples. But I just picked two to try and illustrate the complexity of the subject. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 18:22:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:22:53 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178008 Magpie wrote: > Did I get the Americanized Hollywood version of the book then? > Because the one I read ain't Bergman. I'm sure JKR considers the > flaws in the WW to be flaws the way she always has, but I don't think > this makes the ending any more ambiguous. Harry isn't a social > revolutionary. He's defending his own world and friends as they > are/were. The central issue has always been Harry and his happiness, > and in the end he gets that in true Hollywood fashion with a passel > of kids hired from central casting. He gets the girl, the sidekicks > get each other, everybody has children, preferably with even more > people in his little circle. His life's exactly the way it was before > only no Voldemort so there's no threat to any of them. > > I don't see anything not triumphant or happy about that ending just > because she didn't include Slytherin and Gryffindors singing kumbaya > together while House Elves board the Express as students. Harry's > line to his son gives props to poor old Snape who could maybe have > almost been a Gryffindor, and harks back yet again to Harry's choice > of Gryffindor which has always been a bood thing--remember kids, all > you have to do is choose not to be Slytherin. He's no longer > disturbed by the hat suggesting he'd have been good in the house. > (Kids choosing their house with the hat without interference of older > siblings or parents has never been an issue for anyone.) I just don't > read the imperfect state of affairs as some indication of darkness. > It's just not of primary importance to Harry's happiness and never > has been. He's happy in his imperfect world, living his ordinary > life. He's got an enviable place in his society. I took "all is well" > at face value. How could it not be--look at all the babies they've > got. Carol responds: I'm not sure what genre you're drawing your expectations from, but even a heroic quest only succeeds in achieving a single goal (or bringing down a single enemy). Harry acquires and destroys the Horcruxes with the aid of friends, a secret ally, and an enemy; acquires and rejects the Hallows (except the cloak, which is rightfully his); and destroys Voldemort. A mystery novel solves the mystery. DH solves the mystery of Dumbledore's motives and the series-long mystery of Snape's loyalties. A Bildungsroman shows the protagonist learning important lessons about himself and his world. In leanrning the truth about Snape (and part of the truth about DD), Harry learns to set aside vengeance and sacrifice himself, which in turn leads to a lesson in the power of love (which DD has always preached but Harry has never fully believed). He learns to trust others and not act alone (letting the DA help him) and he learns that death is not the end of all things. In short, he acquires something like wisdom, at least as much wisdom as someone who is not yet eighteen can possess. And, in the end, he has a Victorian-style happy ending, in which the protagonist is rewarded for his struggles (moving from Innocence through Experience, the hard knocks of life, which, in Harry's case, are extra hard because he's the Chosen One) with domestic bliss. In none of these genres is the world ever wholly remade because of the hero's struggles. Even in LOTR, it's not Frodo but Aragorn who becomes king and the path to healing can never be complete. Middle Earth can never be what it was before the Elves left. It's the time of Men to struggle as best they can--and we know what human beings have made of the world. In the HP books, Harry has a happy family life and (we can assume without being told by JKR outside the context of the books) a good job. Order is restored (no more DEs or Voldemort and it's safe to ride the Hogwarts Express). There are hints of reconciliation between Gryffindor and Slytherin (or conciliation, since the Houses have been on unfriendly terms for a thousand years and particularly so for the last fifty). But one battle in which the DEs are arrested or killed and Voldemort destroyed can't remake the WW. At least Kingsley (note the name: *King*sley) Shacklebolt is Minister for Magic (which we can gather from his being made temporary minister in the last pre-epilogue chapter, which means the WW has a minister who knows how to get along with Muggles and sees them as fully human beings. Order is restored, as it is in a Shakespearean comedy, slightly different and slightly better than before, but otherwise normal. We can't expect a Utopia. That's not a convention of any genre, nor does it conform to what happens in real life when one enemy is conquered or a war is won. Why in the world would we expect conditions in the WW to change radically for what some readers perceive to be the better (equal rights for giants, who have been shown to be violent, and only trainable in exceptional circumstances, or greedy goblins, who cheat wizards as readily as wizards cheat them?) in nineteen years when change doesn't happen that way in the real world? As for House-Elves, Ron had it right. They aren't human. Their needs and minds are different from those of humans. They don't want freedom (which is no great thing in itself without employment, and for them, being freed is the same as being fired). They want to be treated well, and, working for Harry or for Hogwarts, they that's what they get. (I think Kreacher would have been offended if Harry had gone down to the kitchen to ask the House-Elves in general for a sandwich; he was probably honored to do it himself.) HRH are living in the same world that they lived in before, minus the DEs, Voldemort, and a corrupt Ministry that huts down Muggle-borns and allows the Dark Arts to be taught at Hogwarts. It's safe to send your kids to school (if you're not worried about injuries from Quidditch, COMC, or kids hexing each other in the hallways). Platform 9 3/4 is back to normal. We can assume that Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade are back to normal as well. The only differences we can see are a slight lessening in the tension between Gryffindors and Slytherins and a nod to Muggle technology in the cars that Ron and Harry drive to Platform 9 3/4. (Let's hope that the Weasley kids get to visit their Granger grandparents often enough to know how Muggles live and dress and Grandpa Weasley has learned the function of a rubber duck.) They still, no doubt, light their houses with candles and can't use computers because magic interferes with them. Carol, who thinks it's absurd to have marriages between giants and wizards in the first place (or goblins and wizards or trolls and wizards) and is somehow not worried about the rights of non-human beings or their "half-breed" offspring because it's all just fantasy From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 18:36:23 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:36:23 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178009 > Ronale7 > > Hi, > > I've been trying to find the chapter discussions for book 5, Harry > Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and can't even figure out how > to contact a list elf. What I'd like is a list of the message > numbers that discussed each chapter. No matter what I try, I'm > totally in the dark. Anyone got a light? Mike: Go to the "Files" Section, left side of the page in webview, and then go to "Old Admin Files". In there you'll find the OotP Chapter Discussion File (from the old data base table). Unfortunately it looks incomplete. My best guess would be to get to the early, existing message numbers, then, from the last listed chapdisc, start hitting the | < Newer | tab on the upper right side of the screen to see if there are more to follow. Do this in "Group by Topic" view. The first Ootp chapdisc is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/68149 If you enter just the message number - 68149 - into Message # box at the top of the screen and hit GO, you can manage your search from that point. You might want to look at The Lexicon's Chapter-by-chapter discussion (they did it for all of the books). Here's that link: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/rg-op.html BTW, you can contact the list elves at: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com If you do this search and find the subsequent, unlisted message numbers, maybe you could keep track of the other message numbers and inform the list elves - so they could update the old file. Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 19:53:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:53:03 -0000 Subject: please, can you read this Harry-potterquestionnaire and keep it in mind when In-Reply-To: <003401c80f05$491a4290$574077d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178010 Katty Geltmeyer wrote: > > Hey > Perhaps, someone of you was lucky enough to obtain a golden ticket for j.K. Rowling's "open book tour" in the USA or Canada. > > Please, can you read this questionnaire and keep it in mind while you are listing your own "things to ask"? > > I had no chance to obtain a ticket, because I'm not living in the USA or Canada. Carol responds: I have no chance to obtain a ticket, either, but I can answer a few of your questions. > 4: Some questions about horcruxes: > > a: How does the proces of making a horcrux exactly work? I mean: is the murder, necessary to make a horcrux, needed to happen simultaneously? If that's the case, how could the murder of the Riddle-family be used for making a horcrux? I thought at the moment of the murders, Voldemort didn't know how to make one. Carol responds: It's unclear from Tom's conversation with Slughorn whether he already knew how to make a Horcrux, but DD thinks that he did. It seems that the diary was already a Horcrux at that time (made with Maoaning Myrtle's murder, according to a JKR interview), but the ring, which Tom was wearing, was not yet a Horcrux because tom didn't know if a wizard could make more than one. Since he later made it into a Horcrux using his father's murder (the interview again), it's clear that a Horcrux does not need to be made on the spot at the time of the murder. > Katty: > b: Is it necessary for the horcruxmaker to kill somebody by himself, or can he only cause the murder? I thought Hokey killed her mistress by using a poison, so, Hokey committed murder and was the acting person. If you have to commit murder for splitting your soul, houw could Voldemort use this murder for making a horcrux? How did he kill Hepsiba Smit then? Carol: Actually, Winky didn't kill Hepzibah Smith. Tom Riddle did, by poisoning Hepzibah's tea. He planted the memory of the murder in Winky's mind, just as he planted the murdr of the Riddles in Morfin's mind, so that she'd think she did it (accidentally, of course). Katty: > d: By making a horcrux, is poisoning someone as usefull as using the killing curse, strangling somebody or another directly way of killing? Carol: I'm pretty sure that murder is murder in the HP books (though perhaps the murder of Cedric wouldn't have counted because LV didn't perform it himself). In the case of Moaning Myrtle's murder, the Basilisk killed her on Tom's orders, but it was still a murder that Tom could use to create a Horcrux because the Basilisk was his instrument as much as his wand was in murdering the Riddles. So, whether a murder is committed using a snake or poison or a wand (or a twelve-inch knife, if you're Sirius Black trying to murder Peter Pettigrew), it's still a murder and it splits the soul. (Voldie is guilty of murdering Snape even though he used Nagini rather than a wand, right?) > > 13: Was Merope a witch or a squib (as her father called her, or was he just insulting her)? Carol responds: We're told that she was a witch who either performed an Imperius Curse or, more likely, created a love potion to use on Tom Riddle Sr. Also, she had a wand, which she could not have had if she were a Squib. Her father (the brute) was just insulting her. Katty: > 20: Some questions about Fenrir > Greyback: > a: How old is he? > c: Was he an adult or a child when he received the bite? He seemed to be old enough to have received a wand (cf. dh23), so is this an indication to find how old he was at the time he was bitten? Carol: We have enough information to speculate a bit here. Clearly, Greyback is older than Remus Lupin, the first and only werewolf to attend Hogwarts, who's 38 when he dies. Also, Greyback must have been an adult when he bit the child Lupin. Despite not going to Hogwarts, he must have received his wand at age eleven like any other wizard. He may or may not have been a werewolf at this time (I'm guessing that he was or he'd have attended Hogwarts), but he could have purchased the wand (along with his parents) on a day when he wasn't transformed, just as Remus Lupin, bitten as a small child, must have done. I don't see how his having a wand relates to the age at which he was bitten. However, as hardened as he is in crime and as bitter as he is against (normal) wizards, not to mention his still having wolflike traits when he's not transformed, I'm guessing that he's been a werewolf for a long time. At a guess, he's at least 58 (adding 20 to Lupin's age at death). Carol, also wondering about the Elder Wand's core, since no core is mentioned in the story of the three brothers From ronale7 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 19:59:00 2007 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:59:00 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178011 Thanks for the suggestions, Mike. I don't mind doing or sharing the research, but have no idea how to get to the "Group by Topic View." At worst I'll just take an hour a day to glance through the posts sequentially. Should be finished by 2014 . --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Ronale7 > > > > Hi, > > > > I've been trying to find the chapter discussions for book 5, Harry > > Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and can't even figure out how > > to contact a list elf. What I'd like is a list of the message > > numbers that discussed each chapter. No matter what I try, I'm > > totally in the dark. Anyone got a light? > > > Mike: > > Go to the "Files" Section, left side of the page in webview, and then > go to "Old Admin Files". In there you'll find the OotP Chapter > Discussion File (from the old data base table). Unfortunately it > looks incomplete. My best guess would be to get to the early, > existing message numbers, then, from the last listed chapdisc, start > hitting the | < Newer | tab on the upper right side of the screen to > see if there are more to follow. Do this in "Group by Topic" view. > The first Ootp chapdisc is: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/68149 > > If you enter just the message number - 68149 - into Message # box at > the top of the screen and hit GO, you can manage your search from > that point. > > You might want to look at The Lexicon's Chapter-by-chapter discussion > (they did it for all of the books). Here's that link: > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/rg-op.html > > BTW, you can contact the list elves at: > > HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com > > If you do this search and find the subsequent, unlisted message > numbers, maybe you could keep track of the other message numbers and > inform the list elves - so they could update the old file. > > Mike > From starview316 at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 16 20:43:54 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:43:54 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Jeanette: > > > Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people. > > > > > > Gryffindors are poor but honest... (drawing with a very broad > > > brush here - bear with me please). > > > > > > >>lizzyben: > > > Well, one problem with that view is that Slytherins/Gryffindors > > > aren't really divided by socio-economic level. > > > > > > I would've maybe agreed w/this view a few books ago, but > > > now it seems like socioeconomic level has little to do with the > > > Sorting - it's character that matters. > > > >>montims: > > yes - I had said I was painting with a broad brush - evidently the > > houses aren't split by socio-economic criteria, and equally > > evidently, the real world is. > > > > Betsy Hp: > The thing is, IMO, Slytherin is made up of everything JKR finds bad > about people. If a Slytherin is rich, they're the bad kind of rich > (snobby, elitist, etc.). If they're poor, they're the bad kind of > poor (ignorant, greedy, etc.). And the reverse is meant to be true > of the Gryffindors. > > Honestly, this is part of the reason I really dislike the underlying > message of the books. It's incredibly devisive. "Are there people > who aren't like you? Do you dislike them? Well, take heart dear > reader. They aren't quite as human as you and you can totally stomp > them if you so desire. Because it's totally awesome (and reliable!) > to judge people's worth based on how much you personally like them." > > IMO, while it can seem to come down to character, the fact that > our "good guys" behaved in some rather questionable ways but somehow > still managed to maintain (as per the author) their patina of > goodness, implied (IMO) that their "goodness" was established at the > Sorting. In other words, you don't really have to look at a person's > behavior to judge them, just look at the color of their tie. > (Dumbledore's "sort too early" comment to Snape also puts forth that > point of view, I think.) Amy: Um, Slytherins and Gryffindors aren't divided by any standards that can actually be used in the real world: beauty vs. ugliness, rich vs. poor, race, etc. "Judge people by the colour of their tie" is not an underlying message of the HP series, because most people in the real world aren't walking around wearing green or red ties. So how exactly is this message divisive, *except* for character? By real-world standards and prejudices, Slytherins and Gryffindors are exactly alike, which I think may have been JKR's point. What else are kids supposed to divide them by, besides character? I get what you're saying about the "judge people's worth based on how much you like them" message, but I don't see how you're supposed to apply this to Slytherin vs. Gryffindor. Lily liked Snape. Harry and Ron hate Cormac McLaggen (Gryffindor) and Zacharias Smith (Hufflepuff). It's Marietta (Ravenclaw) who gets smeared with life- long face pimples. I think it's a given that EVERYONE is supposed to hate Wormtail (whether the reader actually does or not). So I think that the underlying message basically IS "judge people by character", which actually isn't the most heinous message in the world. There's a difference between behaviour and character. There was actually a discussion on this board weeks ago, in which it was pointed out that with most of the good characters, though they act badly a lot of the time, they're not really supposed to be unpleasant people (and if they are, then it's not really an issue that we didn't get a "pleasant", likeable Slytherin). Amy From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 22:07:05 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:07:05 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Well we know a bit more than that. We know that with the exception of > Harry and Dumbledore nobody did more to bring down Voldemort than > Regulus. I don't know if he was likable or not but when he died he > must have been a good person. > Prep0strus: I don't think this follows, other than in the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of way. It is certainly possible that Regalus died a 'good person'. But I don't believe that caring for a certain person or idea necessarily then makes you a caring, good person in the rest of life. I think Narcissa is a good example - she cared for her son, her family, and, in the end, cared for them more than she cared for the Voldemort or what he stood for. But if caring for her son did not come in conflict with Voldemort, I don't think she would have turned on him. If Draco had become an honored and protected servant of Voldemort's, I think she would have been fine in his service. And, even had she or any of her family never joined up with him, that wouldn't have made her a 'good person', as she still would likely have been a pureblooded, arrogant, nasty, superior woman. Regalus caring for Kreacher does not negate the possibility that he still believed in pureblooded ideology, or even in violence towards innocents. It could just mean that he turned against a superior who treated something HE cared about badly. It's possible Regalus had a true change of heart, but there's no definitive evidence of it. When one bad guy does something to another bad guy, and the second bad guy retaliates, does that mean the second bad guy has changed what he is? And when Regalus cares about Kreacher, is it caring for an equal, a pet, or something in between? And does it matter if he still hates muggleborns? Eggplant > I am more interested in actions than in motivations and beliefs and > his actions were good. Prep0strus: Here we simply disagree. I think motivations are both more interesting, and more important in the end. Also, I'm not sure that actions CAN be 'good'. I suppose they can have 'good' results. Destroying Voldemort is 'good', so taking the locket was 'good'. But his motivations in doing so are much more interesting. Was it because he realized how dangerous Voldemort is and that he needed to stop him? Did he realize that the Horcruxes made him something truly evil, beyond what he thought? Was it revenge for what he did to Kreacher? Was it so that he could learn how to make a Horcrux himself and challenge the dark lord? Your statement suggests that if he was still a terrible, violent bigot who stole the locket for selfish, horrible reasons... the action still would have been good, and therefore he would have been good. Motivations and beliefs are what give characters and people their reason for existing and our way to understand their actions. Doing something wrong for the right reasons and the right beliefs is a mistake made by a good person. Doing something right for the wrong reasons and the wrong beliefs... well, I guess that's also a 'mistake' - but that is not a good person. I just don't feel like I got enough of Regalus to know his motivations. Turning against Voldemort isn't enough to make a person 'good', in my opinion. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 16 22:15:34 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:15:34 -0000 Subject: Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178014 Amy: Um, Slytherins and Gryffindors aren't divided by any standards that can actually be used in the real world: beauty vs. ugliness, rich vs. poor, race, etc. "Judge people by the colour of their tie" is not an underlying message of the HP series, because most people in the real world aren't walking around wearing green or red ties. So how exactly is this message divisive, *except* for character? By real-world standards and prejudices, Slytherins and Gryffindors are exactly alike, which I think may have been JKR's point. What else are kids supposed to divide them by, besides character? Tiffany: I agree because there's no real obvious reason except for character going on in the actual Sorting itself. It's true there are some underlying biases like Harry coaxing the Hat into not putting him in Slytherin. I can't help but think how different the stories for the books would've been if Harry would've been in Slytherin instead of Gryffindor. It's also important to note that not evil people wear red ties or black hats & not all good people wear green ties or white hats. I think that was a real coming of age moment for Harry when his ideas about Gryffindor & Slytherin were drastically redefined. It's all about judge folks by their character & actions, not by what house they are in or anything like it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 22:19:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:19:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178015 > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 5, Fallen Warrior Mike: The Tonks worry over their daughter, Dora (teehee), and Harry, suddenly remembering the portkey, promises them he'll have Tonks ? er, Dora (teehee) ? send word. Carol: "Dora" means "gift," so I find the use of the nickname touching. Also, the use of pet names (Dora and Dromeda) seems to suggest affection and closeness. Just my take on the Tonks family. > > Part I Questions: > > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came in? Carol: I suppose it was a gut reaction and he was under stress, but it must have hurt Andromeda's feelings. I can only hope, based on the later closeness of Teddy to the Potter family, that poor Andromeda (who lost a husband, a daughter, and a son-in-law within a few months) became part of the family, too. > > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, to label her a "good Slytherin"? Carol: IMO, yes. She obviously loves her daughter and raised her well, and she acts as a healer to Hagrid. She and her Muggle-born husband (for whose sake she has lost all contact with her birth family) have risked a great deal in providing a safe house for Harry and Hagrid (their house seems to have been specially chosen as the one that Harry would fly to). Her family are all DEs or Voldie supporters. (Poor 'Dromeda. Sorted into the wrong house.) Seriously, I think she parallels the Good Samaritan (as does Regulus, whom Harry expects to have forced Kreacher to drink the potion, judging him as a Slytherin and therefore evil, in Harry's view. Harry and the reader learn otherwise.) i know that others disagree, but IMO Harry's brief exposure Andromeda Tonks (whose "householdy" spells and healing talents tie her to Molly Weasley and, oddly, to Fleur) is a step toward seeing Slytherins and former Slytherins as people. See my previous posts on this subject. > > 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? Carol: Well, yes and no. Hedwig has been Harry's friend and companion for years. and yet I can understand Harry's not mentioning her to Mrs. Weasley later in the chapter. They have enough death and suffering to worry about. I'm glad that Harry thinks of Hedwig occasionally later with a twinge of guilt and regret. True, she's "only" a pet, but they were friends. I suppose it's healthy not to dwell on her death, and especially on blowing up the sidecar after she was already dead, but I'd be sad if he forgot her altogether. As I've said elsewhere, her death (and the loss of the Firebolt) signifies the end of Harry's childhood and foreshadows greater losses to come. (Do owls have souls? If not, "she had a good life" [and died painlessly] is all the consolation Harry can be given.) > > 4. Whimsy Question: What did you think of Ted Tonks' description? Carol: Well, you didn't quote it so I had to look it up: "a fair-haired, big-bellied man." He sounds like a younger Slughorn (except that we already know him to be "a right old slob" in contrast to the comfort-loving, somewhat fastidious Slughorn), but he's obviously a quicker thinker and handier with healing. (He wouldn't have stood helplessly watching Ron turn purple from poison.) Later, we learn that he has a gentle voice. I liked Ted Tonks a lot, actually (even though, like everyone else, he misjudged Snape, as we learn later). I think that JKR could add him to her very short list of good fathers in the HP books. Mike: > Part II ? The Seven Potters Regroup > > Harry and Hagrid are greeted by Molly and Ginny. They sort out who else is back (nobody yet), who should have been back (Ron, Tonks, Fred, and Arthur) and who's suppose to arrive next (Lupin and George). Carol: Mike, dear, there's a "d" in "supposed [to]." It's a past participle. Forgive me, but I keep noticing that you tend to leave it out. > Part II Questions: > > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin failed to check Tonks and Ron? Carol: I thought that the security checks were a strange contrast to HBP, in which DD didn't take them seriously (the raspberry jam remark), Harry thought the Ministry protections were pointless, and the Molly/Arthur "Mollywobbles" moment provides a moment of poignant humor (in which I felt sorry for both Mrs. Weasley and Harry). I suppose the fact that Kingsley and Lupin are suddenly taking them seriously indicates that the situation has worsened (which the reader knew already), but I didn't like the harsher Lupin of this chapter. I didn't notice that he failed to check Tonks and Ron, but I certainly noticed the contrast between his white face and her joy in seeing him. It didn't bode well for the happiness of the couple, and Lupin's behavior seemed OoC. > > 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? Carol: I'm not sure about Expelliarmus as Harry's signature spell (it does explain why the unnamed DE went for Voldemort, but it seems like just a regulation DADA spell to me and more humane than Stupefy at 500 feet (or whatever) above the ground. I liked Harry better than the new bloodthirsty, vengeful Lupin at that moment. I also liked having a spell that Snape taught Harry (and others) being important, but it's been important since Ron or Harry used it on Lockhart in CoS and came in handy again in GoF and OoP, not to mention that Draco had used it on DD. I didn't suspect foreshadowing relating to Expelliarmus (which was bound to be important, regardless) so much as something related to Harry's wand acting on its own later in the chapter. *There* I clearly saw foreshadowing (though I couldn't have foreseen anything like the complicated wand subplot it was setting up). As for Lupin saying that Sectumsempra was Snape's signature spell, IMO, that's ridiculous. If he'd used Sectumsempra (other than the rudimentary form that caused a minor cut on James's cheek in SWM) at Hogwarts, he'd have been expelled. And Lupin didn't know that Snape was a DE until the Order reformed between GoF and OoP. That was one of the moments when I wanted to shake Lupin (and I wondered whether *he* was the traitor, trying to make Snape look as bad as possible, as he'd also done in the hospital wing in HBP). But I also wondered whether Rowling was having one of her memory lapses (like the one in HBP where Hermione claims that all the DEs were using Levicorpus on the Muggles when only one of them used it or Ron, also in HBp, somehow knows about Draco's Hand of Glory, which Draco wished for but Lucius did not buy in CoS in a scene where Ron was not present). Anyway, I didn't like the Lupin of this chapter at all for many reasons and was prepared for some plot twist involving him. I suppose he was a red herring of sorts since there wasn't any traitor, only Confundungus apparently having contact with Snape, either Imperiused or under the (correct) impression that Snape was on their side under deep cover. More questions left unanswered by JKR. > Mike: > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? Carol: I thought that the waiting and the tension was very realistic and it increased the suspense. > > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find something odd about their whole interaction? Carol: Essentially, I wondered whether he was angry because he loved her and was being overprotective (she's an Auror, after all) or whether he didn't love her at all and should not have married her. As I said, he seemed OoC in this whole chapter. He's clearly not at his best in a crisis to put it kindly. ESW!Lupin suspecting and blaming everybody but himself? I liked him much better when he was holding Harry back from following sirius Black through the Veil in OoP. > > 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action without Dumbledore? Carol: I thought that "Fallen Warrior" referred to Hagrid, who seems to be dead at the end of the previous chapter. Like Harry, I was surprised that Mad-Eye, who had survived so much, would be the one to die. It reminded me of his words to the guard in OoP "if any of us is killed." Should have known that was foreshadowing. In retrospect, it's not surprising that Voldemort would go after him rather than Hagrid, whom he would see as inept. > > 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than George's? Carol: No, but I loved George for his sense of humor and his courage. Who else could accept defacement with such grace? And I felt sick and sad that the "We're identical" joke (made when they were both "skinny, specky gits") could never be repeated. I also liked Fred's concern for his brother. And I don't even like the Twins. > Part III Questions: > > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does this sound reasonable? Carol: Well, Fleur insinuates that the traitor is Hagrid, or, rather, that he's accidentally let key information slip, as he's done before. But, yes, it does seem reasonable that they'd suspect *someone*, especially someone who wasn't there, whose cowardice resulted in Mad-Eye's death, and they have no way of knowing that there is no traitor: Snape's revelation of the time and date was part of DD's plan. As for Mad-eye's death, Mundungus has a point when he later tells Harry that Voldemort was coming right at him and he'd have been killed if he hadn't Disapparated. What was he supposed to do, die in the line of duty? Mad-eye, in contrast, went down with the ship like a good captain. Maybe his plan was at fault, but the person to blame for Mad-Eye's death was Voldie himself, adding yet another notch to his belt. > > 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it just natural to see something of the father in the son? Carol: Interesting question. Of course, Molly is right that Black sees James in Harry, as does Snape, and both of them are (mostly) wrong, just as Lupin is wrong to think that Harry shouldn't trust his friends because of James's mistake in doing the same thing. But what concerns me is not Lupin's seeing the father in the son (along with almost every other adult) but his failure to see that Harry is right and he, Lupin, is wrong. One of Voldemort's favorite tactics is sowing mistrust among friends, and Lupin is succumbing to it (not to mention his mistrust of himself, which we'll see in a later chapter). > > 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, really, I want to know!) Carol: I'm afraid I won't be much help, but I thought it was just Harry being Harry, trying to do things on his own that he's really not capable of doing alone in a well-intentioned but foolish attempt to protect others. Harry has trouble delegating authority and lacks confidence in his friends. He still doesn't get that he and Ron and Hermione are a team (despite Ron's later defection and return, they need each other). He's being Dumbledorish, trying to do everything by himself. He doesn't fully learn his lesson until he lets the DA help him much later and assigns Neville the task of killing Nagini if he fails to do it himself. > > 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was coming from Harry? Carol: It was clear that the "self-spelling wand" was important, if not crucial, and, yes, I believed Harry since he hadn't aimed the wand. I've always thought that wands were sentient, but not to that degree. And I liked Harry's acknowledgment that it wasn't his own power, that he wasn't a match for Voldemort, accidental magic or otherwise. But, of course, I would much rather that moment hadn't happened and Voldemort's hunt for the Elder Wand had been postponed or had never happened. (Imagine him with "Lucius's poor stick" for the rest of the book! Actually, I think he should have used his own wand for everything except trying to kill Harry, and that should not have happened till the final confrontation. But, then, Voldie would have wreaked havoc in England, and another set of people would have died. Too bad Harry's wand didn't knock him off his broom and turn him into Vapormort till the Horcruxes were destroyed.) > > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? Carol: Good question. Of course, the Occlumency lessons in OoP were intended to keep Voldie out of Harry's mind and not vice versa, and that's no longer necessary. Also, of course, Harry does eventually learn to control the visions. But, painful as the visions are physically and psychologically, they do seem to be more useful in DH than in previous books, especially near the end when he knows that Voldemort has found out about the Horcruxes. And if Harry hadn't followed Voldie to the Shrieking Shack, snape would have died for nothing. (They're also useful to the reader, giving us glimpses of characters we wouldn't see otherwise.) Hermione can't know that they'll be useful, so her fear is understandable, but I think she's confusing the situation in OoP with the entirely different situation in DH. Essentially, IMO, Harry should have learned Occlumency, but he should also know when to apply it and when to allow the visions to reveal key information. In the end, it's luck more than skill that helps him. > > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? Carol: Maybe JKR was sleeping again? Or maybe the Thestral was munching on Gnomes? > Carol, thanking Mike for his delightful handling of this exciting and important chapter and hoping he didn't mind the little grammar lesson I sneaked in From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 16 22:39:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:39:14 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronale" wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestions, Mike. I don't mind doing or sharing the > research, but have no idea how to get to the "Group by Topic View." > At worst I'll just take an hour a day to glance through the posts > sequentially. Should be finished by 2014 . Geoff: Oh, much earlier than that. 2013 at the very latest... :-) As suggested, use the message number search box to get to 68149 which should display the individual post on its own. At the bottom of the post, you should find all the linked messages - there are 29 I think. Read through them and then go back to the Old Admin Files to find the start number of the next chapter etc. An alternative route is, if you want to check the number of links, when you get post 68149 on the screen, select message list, which will display 68119-68149 and then click on Group by Topic which will tell you how many linked posts there are and the date of the latest one. Click on the title and away you go (I hope). Have fun. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 22:39:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:39:29 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178017 Prepostrus: > As for Sirius... his treatment of Kreacher, while regrettable, is > expected. As for never stopping mistrusting Snape? > This is a basis on which to judge a person? Carol: No. It's a basis for liking or disliking a character, which is what we're discussing. Purely subjective, but that's the topic of the post. > Prepostrus: > > Sirius went away to that hellish prison believing Snape to be part of the group that killed his friends. Carol: Actually, he didn't believe any such thing. In GoF, he states that he doesn't think Snape was ever a DE or DD would not have hired him. He only points out that a number of Snape's friends ("gang") became DEs. His animosity toward Snape in PoA is entirely based on their school days, just as Snape's seems to be (but isn't--he believes Black to be the traitor responsible for Lily's death--scapegoating him to escape his own share of the blame, I realize). Anyway, I like Snape and I don't much like reckless, arrogant, formerly bullying Sirius Black, who broke into a school with a twelve-inch knife, endangering or at least terrifying the students, to get revenge on the friend who betrayed and framed him. neither Snape nor Sirius can let go of their grudges. Neither ever fully grows up. But at least Snape had a chance to use his cunning and courage to fight Voldie and protect Harry. Sirius did his best at the MoM, but his arrogance got the best of him in the end, taunting Bellatrix and fighting her on the dais of the Veil. I suppose Snape's end was inevitable, too, the result of his mistake in becoming a DE in the first place, but at least he died accomplishing something. Not arguing here, just explaining why I like Snape (and Regulus, whom I talked about in the post you're responding to) better than Sirius. I like Kreacher better, too, at least as he appears in "Kreacher's Tale" and the Battle of Hogwarts. It's important, IMO, that Harry learns to see those three characters (Snape, Regulus, and Kreacher) clearly in DH. It's part of his growing up and acquiring understanding, wisdom, and compassion (as he had earlier learned to do with the oddballs Luna and Neville). Carol, noting that Regulus is spelled with two "u's" and is the name of the brightest star in the constellation Leo, perhaps suggesting that he, too, was "sorted too soon" in JKR's view (the lion being the sign of Gryffindor House) From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 16 23:40:15 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:40:15 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus (Was: Villain!Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178018 > Carol: > No. It's a basis for liking or disliking a character, which is what > we're discussing. Purely subjective, but that's the topic of the post. Prep0strus: Yes, but it was a post about liking or not liking Regulus, and Sirius' feelings about Snape are a non sequitor at best. And if we were to use mistrust of Snape as a scale with which to judge a character, I'm not sure who would pass that test... Dumbledore, Draco, Narcissa, and Voldemort, I guess. Carol: > Not arguing here, just explaining why I like Snape (and Regulus, whom > I talked about in the post you're responding to) better than Sirius. I > like Kreacher better, too, at least as he appears in "Kreacher's Tale" > and the Battle of Hogwarts. It's important, IMO, that Harry learns to > see those three characters (Snape, Regulus, and Kreacher) clearly in > DH. It's part of his growing up and acquiring understanding, wisdom, > and compassion (as he had earlier learned to do with the oddballs Luna > and Neville). Prep0strus: And yet, Severus is indirectly responsible for the deaths of the Potters, Mad-Eyed Moody, and likely others in the service of Voldemort. Kreacher is indirectly responsible for the death of Sirius. Sirius is the only one who ends up without death on his hands - in the end, his flaws help lead to his own end, but not the death of others. Sirius, a loyal friend, was framed and spent years in the most hellish prison imaginable - years Snape, partially responsible for the deaths Sirius was blamed for, spent as potions teacher and Head of Slytherin House. Sirius came out of that a wounded and tortured man, only to see his old enemy respected leading a fine and dandy life. Severus, spending his life making the lives of kids miserable, including Harry, Sirius' only real link to humanity. Sirius, hating Snape all those years, assuming him to be headed on a path to becoming a death eater - his assumptions right, by the way, returns to find himself, a loyal, good person who has suffered more than anyone else, a fugitive from the law, hands tied, while his old adversary taunts and belittles him. Snape never respected Sirius either, and treated him badly - especially considering the moral superiority Sirius has over Severus. Snape's treatment of Sirius as an adult is infinitely more despicable than the reverse - if only because Severus is trying to make up for past mistakes while Sirius is recovering from the wrongs that were done to him. So much is made of Sirius being a bully as a child, of the 'prank'. If Sirius needs to take responsibility for his reckless behavior as an adult, than Severus should take responsibility for his reckless behavior as a child - especially when you consider motivations. Sirius is trapped like a prisoner, having done nothing wrong, and only wants to help his cause and his grandson. Snape is a bitter little boy who wants to get his rivals in trouble. Then Snape grows up to taunt and goad Sirius as well. Sirius at least has an excuse - a decade in a literal soul-sucking hell - for why he hasn't fully grown up. What is Snape's excuse to continue to be cruel and prod at a man who's done nothing wrong? Ugh. It's absolutely despicable.\ And, as for Regulus... we still don't know anything. As I said in my response to Eggplant, we know nothing of his motivations or beliefs. Almost everything we put on him morally is projected from theory. Unlike Sirius, a genuine hero, or even Snape, a reformed villain, all we have is a few bits and scrapes of knowledge with which to evaluate Regulus. Not enough, imo, to know where he stands, to label him hero or villain. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 00:42:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:42:29 -0000 Subject: Unreliable narrator yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178019 Carol earlier: > > > Harry's parents supposedly dying in a car accident > > If the narrator had said Harry's parents died in a car crash that would indeed be an unreliable narrator, but a narrator saying that is what Harry was told is not a unreliable narrator. A narrator can be ambiguous, he can leave important stuff out, but I can't think of any third person narrator that is an outright liar, at least not in a book that is better than a bucket of warm spit. An author can be tricky but must play fair. Misdirection is great but you've got to be careful, cross the line and have the third person narrator outright lie and your book is crap. Carol responds: I never said that the narrator lies. He's "unreliable" to the extent that he's reflecting the mistaken perceptions of the pov character. An early example is the quickly corrected statement that Harry's parents died in a car crash (reflecting Harry's belief). Changing "a car crash" to "that car crash" makes no difference in the narrator's reliability. He is still mistaken because Harry is mistaken. Neither the narrator, who is just the voice telling the story, nor the author is *lying.* We're just being misdirected by the mistaken perceptions and biases of the character whose pov is reflected in the narration. It's a sophisticated literary device used by many authors other than JKR. Other examples include the ironic opening statement of SS/PS (in the spirit of Jane Austen) that the Dursleys were "proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much." Granted, the narrator is paraphrasing the Dursleys, but Vernon is the pov character and the chapter reflects his views, not JKR's. "Mrs. Dursley had had a nice normal day"--which consists of spying on the neighbors and Dudley's new word, "Won't!" Normal day? Maybe in the Dursleys' view, but not in JKR's, I hope. The narrator is reflecting the Dursleys' conception of normality. I could cite numerous examples of Harry's misperceptions of everything from the scar tingling because Snape looked at him to the Thestrals being "terrible," not to mention all those times that Harry is going to die from being Crucio'd but doesn't. How many times does the narrator tell us that Harry is going to die and he doesn't? How about that last line of "The Forest Again": "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." End of chapter. Too bad the picture of Harry without his glasses on the next page of the American edition gives away that he isn't dead. But it sure sounds like he is from the narrator's words. I'll go back to one of the examples I gave in the previous post to illustrate my point more clearly, an out-and-out false statement which is not a lie but a misperception by the pov character, Harry, reflected in the narrator's words: "Snape was going to torture him to death or madness" (HBP Am. ed. 603). Even though we next hear Snape shouting "No!" and the pain stops, the narrator never says that it's Snape who stops the Crucio (and apparently Carrow who cast it). It's unclear whether Harry, who still sees Snape as DD's murderer (for understandable reasons) ever figures it out. Certainly, he hasn't done so in the next paragraph, when he "staggered blindly toward Snape, the man he now hated as much as he hated Voldemort himself" (603). On the tower, we're given Snape's expression of "hatred and revulsion," his casting the spell, and Harry's feeling of helpless horror (596)--"unreliable" not in the depiction of the action--Snape does cast the spell--but in Harry's interpretation of that action as treachery and murder. How many people thought, from these two scenes that Snape was evil? The vast majority of readers, probably (though not on this list, I admit). We're supposed to either share Harry's view or at least feel our faith in Snape's loyalty deeply shaken. And even I, a Snape supporter and enthusiast, had my moment of doubt, feeling that I'd been misled into believing that Snape was loyal to DD. You really can't tell for sure from reading HBP. You can only look for clues to support either interpretation and wait for DH (which continues to depict Snape as seemingly evil, with a few hints to the contrary) until "The Prince's Tale" because that's how Harry, the pov character, perceives him. I'll give just two here since most of the other misdirection involves dialogue: "Had it worked, Harry wondered, or had Snape already blasted the horror-figure aside as casually as he had killed the real Dumbledore?" (171) and "Had [Dumbledore thought that . . . he would live for years, for centuries, perhaps like his frien Nicolas Flamel? If so, he had been wrong. snape had seen to that. Snape, the sleeping snake, who had struck at the top of the tower" (279). Sure, the narrator is paraphrasing Harry's thoughts, but they're presented as if his perspective were accurate. It isn't just Snape who's presented this way, but I'm most familiar with the examples involving him. I've also listed examples of the phrase "Harry knew" often but not always signalling a false perception, but I don't feel like hunting up old posts now. I should also note that all the references in GoF to Barty Crouch Jr. as "Moody" are unreliable; Crouch isn't Moody and never was, any more than "Bathilda" is Bathilda in that chapter of DH. Nevertheless, the narrator calls the characters (Nagini being a character even though she's not human) by those names because that's the "reality" that Harry, the pov character, perceives. I'm not saying that the narrator is *always* unreliable. If he were, the story would be pointless. But he's unreliable on certain subjects, those on which Harry (or another pov character) is mistaken or biased. Again, the unreliable narrator is a *concept*, one of several literary devices that an author can use when he or she wants to misdirect the reader. The narrator is not lying; he's expressing the truth as Harry sees it or the "facts" as Harry knows them. But the misperceptions are cleared away through the course of the book(s), sometimes immediately, sometimes in the denouement of a particular book or the last book of the series. *Perception* is the key. What we see or think we see is not always what is happening, any more than the Muggles really saw Sirius Black blow up the street. What we hear does not always mean what we think it means, as Harry's many attempts at eavesdropping and drawing conclusions from those conversations bear out. JKR very skilfully misleads the reader along with Harry (unless, of course, the reader is carefully watching for evidence to contradict Harry's interpretation, reflected in the narrator's not always reliable depiction of characters and events). Carol, who considers JKR's skill in using the unreliable narrator as one of her strengths, a way of skilfully tricking the reader without actually "lying" about the characters and incidents From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Oct 17 01:27:23 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:27:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unreliable narrator yet again. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178020 In a message dated 10/16/2007 7:42:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: Changing "a car crash" to "that car crash" makes no difference in the narrator's reliability. He is still mistaken because Harry is mistaken. But Harry wasn't mistaken when he had that thought. Harry knew in DH how his parents died (and I doubt that JKR forgot how they died). IMO it was more of a sarcastic thought if anything. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 17 01:58:05 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:58:05 EDT Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178021 > >>Pippin: > What's missing is the soul-searching the heroes went > through to reach that conclusion. > > Harry, of the "saving people thing" didn't even think of saving > Snape. That's not repulsive, IMO, it's tragic. > Betsy Hp: What keeps DH stuck in the mud of repulsiveness rather than rising to the level of tragedy (IMO) is that very lack of soul-searching you mentioned. Harry *never* comes to the conclusion that he should have done something to help Snape. I don't recall any text where Harry thinks he did wrong. Julie: This subject has come up a couple of times now, and I've even seen it referred to in fanfic (where Snape, who manages to survive via one method or another, thinks that Harry just left him there "to die"). But when I read the book I never had the impression that Snape *was* saveable (if that's a word!). Consider that Snape didn't seem to be dying directly from Nagini's poison (as Arthur was). He was clutching at his throat trying to stop the very copious blood flow which was described. I was very much under the impression that Nagini had more or less ripped Snape's throat out. From the description, she didn't merely sink her fangs in and then depart. She did major physical damage, likely to the carotid artery, and Snape was very quickly bleeding out. Under these circumstances *could* Harry have helped him? He certainly didn't have any potions on him, nor did Hermione. He couldn't apparate back to Hogwarts to get Madam Pomprey, nor apparate Snape there. There would be no point in levitating Snape back, as it was pretty clear he was mere moments from death. Even Snape knew that, and made no request at all for help. If he thought he could be saved, wouldn't he have requested Harry, or better yet, Hermione, to do something to staunch the blood, or to retrieve potions on his person (should he have them)? Certainly Harry and Hermione still believe Snape to be a traitor, but both have shown time and again that they will act to help someone in serious distress, even someone they hate. And Snape is not unaware of their Gryffindor penchant for such heroism (whether he derides it or not). I suppose you could say Snape wanted to die anyway. And I'll agree that I'm not sure he cared much whether he lived. But I still think the way the scene was presented implied that both the Trio and Snape knew it was too late to save him. There was only time enough for Snape to remove his memories for Harry. And I also note that Harry watched Snape's eyes go blank. I.e., he saw Snape die. He didn't *leave* Snape there to die. Snape was already dead when Harry left. While I would love to imagine Snape *still* managed to survive after all of this, whether via Draught of Death, Phoenix Tears, or whatever other method fanfic writers can visualize, in canon it's clear Harry had no doubt Snape was dead when Harry left the Shack. And it seemed equally clear to me that neither Harry nor the more clear-headed Hermione had any conception that Snape's life *could* be saved in this scene. Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 02:46:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:46:14 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Well we know a bit more than that. We know that with the exception of > Harry and Dumbledore nobody did more to bring down Voldemort than > Regulus. I don't know if he was likable or not but when he died he > must have been a good person. > Prep0strus: I don't think this follows, other than in the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of way. It is certainly possible that Regalus died a 'good person'. But I don't believe that caring for a certain person or idea necessarily then makes you a caring, good person in the rest of life. I think Narcissa is a good example - she cared for her son, her family, and, in the end, cared for them more than she cared for the Voldemort or what he stood for. But if caring for her son did not come in conflict with Voldemort, I don't think she would have turned on him. If Draco had become an honored and protected servant of Voldemort's, I think she would have been fine in his service. And, even had she or any of her family never joined up with him, that wouldn't have made her a 'good person', as she still would likely have been a pureblooded, arrogant, nasty, superior woman. Regalus caring for Kreacher does not negate the possibility that he still believed in pureblooded ideology, or even in violence towards innocents. It could just mean that he turned against a superior who treated something HE cared about badly. It's possible Regalus had a true change of heart, but there's no definitive evidence of it. When one bad guy does something to another bad guy, and the second bad guy retaliates, does that mean the second bad guy has changed what he is? And when Regalus cares about Kreacher, is it caring for an equal, a pet, or something in between? And does it matter if he still hates muggleborns? Alla: Ah, but you see to me it depends on action. Totally agree with you in general that caring for one person does not make you a good person ( Cough Snape cough), but the thing is Regulus cared for house elf. He cared for the being, whose standing seems to me to be lowest of low in the WW. Cared enough to die for him. I mean, I guess the fact that Voldemort's ideology is Purebloods rule and every other being be damned tells me that Regulus changed indeed. It is not the fact that Regulus died for somebody, it is the fact that he died for **house elf** that tells me NOT that. Do I know that he was socially nice person? NO clue. But do I think that he was not racist, murderer and torturer when he died? I think so, yes. I do not believe that somebody who would have still had in his head those thoughts would have agreed to die for house elf, or goblin or werewolf or any non - human race. He did not just retaliate against Voldie, he saved a life, no? He did not just steal a horcrux, he drank that horrible horrible thing. He would never enjoy the consequences of his retaliation, the only satisfaction for him, for this poor eighteen year old to know that his elf would live, is it not? I do not know. I cried for Regulus. His fate stands up for me a great deal. Narcissa, well, yes, we hear that she wants to go with victorious army, right? I totally know that she is selfish ( what mother would not be?) and that she could care less about Harry winning. I give her props for lying to Voldemort, but do not consider her to be a good person or something, just a mother, scared for the fate of her son. I do not see any hint of selfish motivations in Regulus' story and I do see a hint that he was seeking a Truth and found it (symbolism of him being a seeker?) besides the story itself. > Prep0strus: > Here we simply disagree. I think motivations are both more > interesting, and more important in the end. Also, I'm not sure that > actions CAN be 'good'. I suppose they can have 'good' results. > Destroying Voldemort is 'good', so taking the locket was 'good'. But > his motivations in doing so are much more interesting. Was it because > he realized how dangerous Voldemort is and that he needed to stop him? > Did he realize that the Horcruxes made him something truly evil, > beyond what he thought? Was it revenge for what he did to Kreacher? > Was it so that he could learn how to make a Horcrux himself and > challenge the dark lord? Alla: I totally agree. Motivations are very important to me, absolutely. But to me I guess certain actions ARE good in itself, motivations or not. I do not particularly care for Snape's motivations, as you know. Meaning that while I give him props for his heroic actions, keeping Harry alive as Lily's son, while continue to hate the boy whom he did so much evil to ( IMO), does not impress me terribly. BUT Snape saving Lupin, oh YES. That is impressive to me. It shows to me something, I do not know, lack of selfishness on Snape behalf and maybe he finally gave up his grudge, if he realised that Lupin is a good guy who does not deserve to die? Whatever his motivation is, I am impressed by that action in itself, even if he just decided to let Lupin live to make sure he can torment him later on or something. PrepOStrus: > Your statement suggests that if he was still a terrible, violent bigot > who stole the locket for selfish, horrible reasons... the action > still would have been good, and therefore he would have been good. Alla: Yes, if ALL that Reg did was stealing the locket, I agree, I would have asked for motivations, for sure. Luckily for me, he did something that I do not need motivation for - he saved a life of house elf. Terrible violent bigots in my mind would never do it. JMO of course. Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 03:14:11 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:14:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178023 > > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she > > came in? > > Carol: > I suppose it was a gut reaction and he was under stress, but it must > have hurt Andromeda's feelings. Mike: I've been holding off adding my two knuts, but I have to put something in here on my favorite questions. I was really pissed at Harry for the way he greeted Andromeda. He knew he was going to the Tonks. He knew that Andromeda was Sirius' favorite cousin and was well aware that she was the sister of Bellatrix and Narcissa. He's now in the house, talking to Ted Tonks and already been told of the protective spells and that "the wife" was tending to Hagrid. He knew she was going to be there, that had just probably saved or repaired Hagrid, and was putting herself in harms way by offering up their home as one of the safe houses. I'm sorry, I thought it was inexcusable to treat the woman that way. > > 2. Was it enough along, with the other background we > > know of her, to label her a "good Slytherin"? > > Carol: > IMO, yes. Mike: I agree. > Carol: > Mike, dear, there's a "d" in "supposed [to]." Mike: LOL! Shades of the pronunciation thread on OTC. I'm guilty of spelling it like I pronounce it, and I always fail to pronounce the "d". I know better, and I know it's frustrating for others. Mea Culpa. > > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's > > check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin > > failed to check Tonks and Ron? > > Carol: > I thought that the security checks were a strange contrast to HBP, > in which DD didn't take them seriously (the raspberry jam remark), I didn't notice that he failed to check Tonks and Ron, Mike: With all the pre-DH speculation on who the new traitor would be, I thought that this was the hint that Tonks would be assuming that role. But then I realized that this security checking was guarding solely against Polyjuiced!Someone. Which snapped me back to Lupin's original check for Polyjuiced!Harry. How would the bad guys be able to Polyjuice Harry if they didn't have something of Harry? And if they had something of Harry, wouldn't that mean they had caught Harry? If the whole aim of Voldemort and the DEs was to capture or kill Harry, why would they bother to Polyjuice someone into Harry and forward him to the Order? Lastly, Polyjuice doesn't work on Hagrid. And yet, there he stands next to Harry whom he left with. How exactly were the DEs supposed to have taken the real Harry and substituted a PJed Harry on the one and only Hagrid? I must concur with Carol, Lupin was falling prey to hysteria and/or allowing the distrust that Voldemort famously spreads to get to him. Maybe someone should have told him what Dumbledore said at his GoF end-of-year speech?! Mike: OK, I admit it. I wrote this question with Carol in mind. :D > > 6. What about Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? > > Carol: > As for Lupin saying that Sectumsempra was Snape's signature spell, > IMO, that's ridiculous. If he'd used Sectumsempra at Hogwarts, > he'd have been expelled. And Lupin didn't know that Snape was a > DE until the Order reformed between GoF and OoP. That was one of > the moments when I wanted to shake Lupin (and I wondered whether > *he* was the traitor, trying to make Snape look as bad as possible, > as he'd also done in the hospital wing in HBP). Mike: I had always assumed that Severus used Sectumsempra at school, it was his invention after all. But I also assumed he was smart enough not to use it on sentient beings, including untransformed werewolves. So this became another instance where Lupin is talking nonsense to me. When I combine all the nonsensical pronouncements he had come up with in this series with his maniacal search for the traitor in this chapter, well, Pippin's ESE!Lupin started to look more promising about here. > > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you > > find something odd about their whole interaction? > > Carol: > Essentially, I wondered whether he was angry because he loved her > and was being overprotective (she's an Auror, after all) or whether > he didn't love her at all and should not have married her. Mike: My thoughts exactly. Lupin is feeling twinges of buyer's remorse. I'm thinking Lupin was bullied into marriage and his whole weak personality is coming out in these pages. > Carol: > ESE!Lupin suspecting and blaming everybody but himself? Mike: Ditto. > > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the > > betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. > > Does this sound reasonable? > > Carol: > As for Mad-eye's death, Mundungus has a point when he later tells > Harry that Voldemort was coming right at him and he'd have been > killed if he hadn't Disapparated. What was he supposed to do, > die in the line of duty? Mike: Once again, I agree. Sure, Dung should have stayed and fought, if he was a brave soul. And if he had ever exhibited those traits before, I would have been disappointed. But when had Dung ever been brave? Why would anybody think he was reliable, brave, self-sacrificing, etc? > Carol: > ... but the person to blame for Mad-Eye's death was Voldie > himself, adding yet another notch to his belt. Mike: And once again, all the characters seem to not notice who they were facing and how scared 99.99% of the WW was of him. > > 13. What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these > > musings? (No, really, I want to know!) > > Carol: > I'm afraid I won't be much help, but I thought it was just Harry > being Harry, trying to do things on his own that he's really not > capable of doing alone in a well-intentioned but foolish attempt to > protect others. Harry has trouble delegating authority and lacks > confidence in his friends. He still doesn't get that he and Ron and > Hermione are a team. > He's being Dumbledorish, trying to do everything by himself. He > doesn't fully learn his lesson until he lets the DA help him much > later and assigns Neville the task of killing Nagini if he fails to > do it himself. Mike: I suppose yours is as good as I'm going to get. I really don't get Harry's thinking here. It's just so irrational from my point of view. He wants to make the whole evenings travails pointless by leaving? And go where? > > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For > > that matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or > > was he making excuses for his well established penchant for > > secrecy? That is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out > > these visions, or had just been told that they are usually real > > visions but that they *could* be fake visions projected by LV > > for Harry's consumption? > > Carol: > Good question. Of course, the Occlumency lessons in OoP were > intended to keep Voldie out of Harry's mind and not vice versa, and > that's no longer necessary. Also, of course, Harry does eventually > learn to control the visions. Mike: Could you tell that I disagreed completely with Dumbledore's original plan for dealing with this "special connection" of Harry's? Harry already knew from CoS onward that Voldie had put "a bit of himself" into Harry. Then he was told in OotP that there was this special connection, and still they didn't tell him and he didn't figure out it was a soul piece. So why couldn't they just tell him that Voldie has the ability to control what Harry sees, that Voldie is a master manipulator and this is something he can manipulate? Dumbledore admitted to the mistake of not telling about the Prophesy, but he doesn't think he made a mistake regarding the Occlumency fiasco other than assigning Snape as the teacher of Harry. I disagree. > Carol: > But, painful as the visions are physically and psychologically, > they do seem to be more useful in DH than in previous books, > especially near the end when he knows that Voldemort has found > out about the Horcruxes. And if Harry hadn't followed Voldie to the > Shrieking Shack, Snape would have died for nothing. (They're also > useful to the reader, giving us glimpses of characters we wouldn't > see otherwise.) Mike: And had they exploited Harry's visions in OotP as Harry was able to in DH, could DD and Snape not gained more information on LV that they wouldn't have had otherwise? "Hey Harry, if you get any of these visions you go straight to Professor Snape and tell him everything you see. Oh, forget about those Occlumency lessons." Additional information, Snape and Harry happier about the arraingments, and no new secrets revealed to Harry. Can I be Dumbledore now? LOL > > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? Mike: I like Zara's answer best, so far: Blood on the grass. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Oct 17 03:46:07 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:46:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Part I Questions: > > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came > in? va32h: I guess it could be blamed on his confused state? Not really appropriate. He was unnecessarily rude. > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black > Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, > to label her a "good Slytherin"? va32h: No. She could have been an interesting character. Yet another wasted opportunity in DH. > 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? va32h: Yes. Perhaps a recollection on Harry's part that she had been his first birthday gift (and from Hagrid no less) > 4. Whimsy Question: What did you think of Ted Tonks' description? va32h: Um, it was fine. Again, sounds like an interesting guy. Too bad we didn't know more about him, or we might have actually cared when he died! > Part II Questions: > > 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's > check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin > failed to check Tonks and Ron? va32h: No, I was still reeling from the whole stupidity of the escape plan. > 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become > Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about > Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? va32h: Well it's interesting that Lupin never mentioned "Snape's signature spell" before...and it's hard to see "Expelliarmus" which is such a basic spell that any 2nd year can pick it up, as being anyone's "signature". I guess "Wingardium Leviosa" is Ron's signature, since he's done it twice! > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to > everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you > annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did > that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? va32h: I figured somebody would be dead. > 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find > something odd about their whole interaction? va32h: I felt that Lupin really did not want to be with Tonks. > 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you > think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when > their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action > without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it > did include Dumbledore) va32h: Sigh! The whole "Seven Harrys" plan was just so ridiculously dangerous and unnecessary. Needless complication after needless complication. I found it hard to believe that Moody - the defensive genius - actually came up with it. If Slughorn could transfigure himself into a chair, surely Moody could have turned Harry into a suitcase and had him carried out of the house by Ron and Hermione who were polyjuiced into looking like Petunia and Vernon. Or one of hundreds of methods that would surely have been much less dangerous than what they actually did. If Seven Potters was Moody's idea, he sort of deserved to die for his stupidity! > > 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the > betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does > this sound reasonable? va32h: No, Dung was right. It was a crazy plan (see above) > 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second > coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is > being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" > quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it > just natural to see something of the father in the son? va32h: Perhaps it is necessary to warn Harry not to make his father's mistakes (trusting too much) > 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to > leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? > What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, > really, I want to know!) va32h: To remind us yet again what a noble guy Harry is. > 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? > Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was > coming from Harry? va32h: I had no idea. Didn't like it though. Too soon in the story for a deus ex machina. > 15. The VoldeVision is Back! Is Hermione's fear rational? For that > matter, was Dumbledore's advice/plan in OotP rational, or was he > making excuses for his well established penchant for secrecy? That > is, should Harry ever have been trying to shut out theses visions, or > had just been told that they are usually real visions but that they > *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's consumption? va32h: Once they realized that Voldie could not possess Harry (at the end of OoTP) they should have milked the connection for all they could. Hermione is being overcautious. > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* on? va32h: Gnomes! From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Oct 17 03:47:22 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:47:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior References: Message-ID: <000901c81070$6e3c0d30$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 178025 Part I Questions: 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came in? I knew who it was but wasn't surprised by Harry's reaction. 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet Andromeda Black Tonks. Was it enough along, with the other background we know of her, to label her a "good Slytherin"? I wasn't expecting to meet her at all so this was a pleasant surprise. As for where she falls in the spectrum of good/bad, I don't think we have enough info. 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for Hedwig? Honestly, I had to re-read it. Once I finally realized she was dead, I was like, "How'd I miss that ?". I know that things were happening very fast but I didn't feel the writing even impacted me enough to either know she died or even feel sad over it. 4. Whimsy Question: What did you think of Ted Tonks' description? For some strange reason, I was surprised. His description wasn't what I pictured. 5. What do you think of the security checks, especially Lupin's check for the real Harry? Did it raise any red flags when Lupin failed to check Tonks and Ron? I had no suspect in my mind that it was one of them that alerted LV. I just assumed that because the day of Harry being of age was drawing nearer that LV was stationed there waiting for him to move. 6. Do you buy Lupin's pronouncement that Expelliarmus has become Harry's signature spell? Or is that just foreshadowing? What about Sectumsempra as Snape's signature spell? I think it's to be noted that while Lupin thought Harry was being stupid for using a disarming spell, it is Expelliarmus that has saved him several times. I do believe it also was a foreshadow. Dumbledore said for them to trust Harry, his instincts are usually right (I'm paraphrasing) and he was right. 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering what's happened to everyone? Did you feel the suspense of the situation or were you annoyed it was taking so long? When George showed up all bloody, did that make you more fearful for the missing remainder of the group? I was waiting with baited breath and felt every second of time stretch. Even though there was conversation and some activity, their absence to me was noticable. I thought for sure one of the Weasley's were not going to return. In particular I thought Ron was a goner. Then when they did, I thought, "Oh good, everyone made it !!!". Then of course, the last to not return was Mad Eye. 8. What did you think of the way Lupin greeted Tonks? Did you find something odd about their whole interaction? For me, Lupin and Tonks' relationship always seemed strained. I think they love eachother but there is so much in the way of them that even though they are going through the motions, their love/relationship just never gets a fair shot. :-( 9. Mad-Eye, the Fallen Warrior. Did you see this coming? Did you think it would be Mad-Eye? What did this portend for the Order when their toughest, most skilled member gets killed in their first action without Dumbledore? (Little did they know that, in a twisted way, it did include Dumbledore) I definitely did NOT suspect Mad Eye would be the one. As I just mentioned, when all the others returned, I just knew they were all safe. He was the rock, the Ultimate Auror...he COULDN'T be dead ! Tonk's reaction really made it real to me, he was her mentor. Even though a bit further on in that or the next chapter they are still looking for his body, I knew he was gone. 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than George's? Nope...and even for Fred and George, I was surprised to see them joking. 11. Though Bill seems to exonerate Mundungus from being the betrayer, the group still seems to blame him for Moody's death. Does this sound reasonable? I guess when you're preparing for something this huge (like moving Harry to a safe-house) and soemthing goes drastically wrong, you look for who to blame. In this situation, "what went wrong"="who did us wrong". Of all those there, Dung has the shadiest reputation and gets the blame tossed his way. 12. In OotP, Molly accuses Sirius of thinking of Harry as the second coming of James. What about Lupin and his bringing up how Harry is being like James, again? (Remember in HBP, the "furry little problem" quip). Is Lupin guilty of seeing too much of James in Harry, or is it just natural to see something of the father in the son? I think he's just remarking how very much like his father he is. It doesn't seem to me like he is confusing Harry for who he really is, rather pointing out to Harry his resemblance to his father. 13. What did you think of Harry's pronouncement that he needed to leave? Was this just another irrational Harry saving-people thing? What was the purpose of having Harry come up with these musings? (No, really, I want to know!) I was with Hermione and Ron.... rolling my eyes, "Here he goes again..." *sigh* 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was coming from Harry? I thought it was somehow coming from Dumbledore (from beyond the grave) to be honest. Kimberly From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Oct 17 04:10:00 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:10:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) References: Message-ID: <003c01c81073$9af8cfe0$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 178026 Julie said: Consider that Snape didn't seem to be dying directly from Nagini's poison (as Arthur was). He was clutching at his throat trying to stop the very copious blood flow which was described. I was very much under the impression that Nagini had more or less ripped Snape's throat out. From the description, she didn't merely sink her fangs in and then depart. She did major physical damage, likely to the carotid artery, and Snape was very quickly bleeding out. Kimberly: We learn in the beginning of Chapter 2 that Harry does not know how to repair wounds. I think that alone says he was in no way capable of healing or saving Snape. His finger was merely cut and he didn't know how to fix it, how could he have saved Snape ? I also think it was as you say, far too severe a wound for even Hermione to fix. Kimberly From sherriola at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 04:22:10 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:22:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47158df8.15b38c0a.4c24.6dcb@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178027 Mike: > > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came > > in? > > Carol: > I suppose it was a gut reaction and he was under stress, but it must > have hurt Andromeda's feelings. Mike: I've been holding off adding my two knuts, but I have to put something in here on my favorite questions. I was really pissed at Harry for the way he greeted Andromeda. He knew he was going to the Tonks. He knew that Andromeda was Sirius' favorite cousin and was well aware that she was the sister of Bellatrix and Narcissa. He's now in the house, talking to Ted Tonks and already been told of the protective spells and that "the wife" was tending to Hagrid. He knew she was going to be there, that had just probably saved or repaired Hagrid, and was putting herself in harms way by offering up their home as one of the safe houses. I'm sorry, I thought it was inexcusable to treat the woman that way. Sherry: Oh, Mike, I think this is almost the first time I've really disagreed with you! But well, I really disagree on this one. Harry has just suffered an extremely dangerous and traumatic event. He is not rational at this time, or he'd be beyond human. He has been chased by deatheaters, and then Voldemort himself, nearly been killed, seen Hedwig die, thought Hagrid had died, is barely a month away from the murder of Dumbledore ... how on earth could he be expected to realize instantly that the woman was not Bellatrix? I totally understood his reaction, with all he'd been through. And Bellatrix is the one who murdered Sirius. I thought his reaction made perfect sense. At least he was able to take time before shooting, so to speak, to learn that it was not Bellatrix. Sometimes, I think we expect super human behavior and reasoning from Harry, but so very often, he really reminds me of what he is, a 17-year-old boy, who has been through hell and is still going through it. This was one of those times for me. Sherry From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 04:52:40 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:52:40 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178028 > Mike: > > Go to the "Files" Section, left side of the page in webview, and then > go to "Old Admin Files". In there you'll find the OotP Chapter > Discussion File (from the old data base table). Unfortunately it > looks incomplete. KathyK: It's here (and complete), too: "Files," "Structured Discussions," "OotP_Chapter_Discussions" From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 06:13:42 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:13:42 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178029 "prep0strus" wrote: > It is certainly possible that Regalus > died a 'good person'. I think it is a virtual certainty he died a good man. Regulus died so heroically trying to destroy one of Voldemort's horcruxes that it is difficult to imagine him not dying a good person; unless that is his crimes before he came to his senses were so huge, unless he was some sort of a Death Eater Dr. Mengele then I think his last act would compensate for any past misdeeds he may have made. And I really doubt Regulus was Dr. Mengele. > I think Narcissa is a good example > she cared for her son, her family, > and, in the end, cared for them more > than she cared for the Voldemort or > what he stood for. But if caring for > her son did not come in conflict with > Voldemort, I don't think she would > have turned on him. On this I think you are exactly correct. The best I can say for Narcissa is that she is not quite as evil as your average Death Eater. > Regalus caring for Kreacher does not > negate the possibility that he still > believed in pureblooded ideology His relationship with Kreature although very interesting and touching is not the defining characteristic of Regulus; it is the fact that he gave his life to strike Voldemort in the spot it hurt him the most, in his Horcrux. And I don't give a hoot in hell what Regulus believed. I don't care what thoughts were dancing around in his head. As long as he can do astronomically good things like that let the man think what he wants to think. I don't believe in thought crime. > Here we simply disagree. I think > motivations are both more interesting, > and more important in the end. We most certainly do disagree! If you do the right thing for the wrong reason it's still the right thing to do, and it you do the wrong thing for the right reason it's still the wrong thing to do. And we can never be certain of anybody's motivations, but we can be certain of their actions. The ultimate question is, if Regulus had never been born would the world have been a better place? I don't believe it would have been. Eggplant From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 06:30:50 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <81465.78883.qm@web50811.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178030 > Mike wrote a spiffing summary of chapter 5, while > posing, inter alia, these questions: > Part I Questions: > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of > Andromeda when she came in? Goddlefrood: In the circumstances of his arrival the greeting was understandable. In the light in which she stood Andromeda was almost the twin of her dear sister Beelatrix and until she was fully lit, iirc, Harry thought she was she. In light of later events the only real surprise was that he didn't Crucio her on the spot ;-) > 2. The big question: This is the only time we meet > Andromeda Black Tonks. Was it enough, along with the > other background we know of her, to label her > a "good Slytherin"? Barely, but along with Horace Slughorn she's about as good a Slytherin as we were given in the books, Snape notwithstanding, and my opinion on him is reserved. There would have been a good deal of satisfaction if she had done for her sister, had that happened I apprehend that many an argument would have been made out for Andromeda being the "really good Slytherin" and not just a "good Slytherin" > 3. In your eyes, was this enough grieving for > Hedwig? There was no grieving for Hedwig in my eyes, I rarely get too sentimental over others' animals' demise, particularly fictional ones. > Part II Questions: > 7. How did you like this waiting and wondering > what's happened to everyone? Did you feel the > suspense of the situation or were you annoyed it was > taking so long? (et sequence) I thought this sequence was one of the best written parts of the book. The suspense of the situation was captured tremendously well I thought. During the course of the wait, and even before George turned up with his severed ear to the tune of Steeler's Wheels, I'd been expecting someone to die. I didn't expect it to be Mad-Eye though, but rather one of the Weasleys. > 10. Whimsy Question: Have you got a better joke than > George's? None that are suitable for publication on this list, although there are several I could offer as better. The one about the Court and the screw driver always goes down well. > Part III Questions: > 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going > to go somewhere? Yes, it seemed quite obvious that the wand had acted on its own without Harry's help. It did go somewhere too, as we found out later on the reason for the regurgitation of the spell. Not having the books with me currently I'll not be the one to expand on this. > 15. That is, should Harry ever have been trying to > shut out theses visions, or had just been told that > they are usually real visions but that they > *could* be fake visions projected by LV for Harry's > consumption? It's just as well Harry did not block the visions otherwise he'd probably still be out there chasing after the Horcruxes. It was a convenient a far too convenient IMO, plot device in order to expedite the Horcrux hunt. As it turned out this was one of the points of DH with which I was personally dissatisfied. > 16. Whimsy Question: What was the Thestral *grazing* > on? On your liver, washed down with a nice Chianti, slurp, slurp, slurp, slurp. Goddlefrood, off to have a nice glass of Chianti sans liver. ___________________________________________________________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 17 11:49:43 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:49:43 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178031 > Julie: snip > > Consider that Snape didn't seem to be dying directly from Nagini's >poison (as Arthur was). He was clutching at his throat trying to >stop the very copious blood flow which was described. Potioncat: I don't think Arthur was poisoned, he was bleeding just like Snape. Harry commented on the amount of blood. Nagini's venom seemed to prevent the wound from healing, rather than killing. But, this is from my memory, not a canon review. Julie: > Under these circumstances *could* Harry have helped him? He >certainly didn't have any potions on him, nor did Hermione. Potioncat: Hermione had dittny--which she used very quickly to stop Ron from bleeding. It was in her very big little bag. Julie: > I suppose you could say Snape wanted to die anyway. And I'll agree that I'm not sure he cared much whether he lived. But I still think the way the scene was presented implied that both the Trio and Snape knew it was too late to save him. Potioncat: I don't think Snape wanted to die. I think Snape wanted to live. As he was desperately trying to get away from the Dark Lord, he was also making attempts to defend himself. He screamed when the snake attacked. This was absolutely horrible, and I don't think there's any moment in the HP books that is more sinister. By the time Harry and Hermione show up, Snape may be resigned to death, or he may be determined to give his information to Harry at the cost of death. As the reader caught up in the events I am furious that neither Harry nor Hermione tried to help Snape--even if it wouldn't have worked. As a reader looking back, I think JKR was brilliant. Having Harry and Hermione freeze, so to speak, made the scene even more shocking, and was well within credibility. We even have Hermione obeying the teacher by providing a vial for the memories. Julie: There was only time enough for Snape to remove his memories for Harry. Potioncat: After the shock of DH had worn off, when the list had opened up, and someone wrote that Snape was dying from poison, I thought poison would have been ironic given Snape's comment to Umbridge,--something along the line of, "Unfortunately, most poisons leave very little time for truth-telling." I agree with Pippin. That neither Harry nor Hermione tried to save Snape was tragic. From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 13:29:09 2007 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:29:09 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178032 Thank you so much, Kay. You've saved me hours of work. Ronale7 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > > Mike: > > > > Go to the "Files" Section, left side of the page in webview, and then > > go to "Old Admin Files". In there you'll find the OotP Chapter > > Discussion File (from the old data base table). Unfortunately it > > looks incomplete. > > KathyK: > > It's here (and complete), too: > > "Files," "Structured Discussions," "OotP_Chapter_Discussions" > From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 13:31:01 2007 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:31:01 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Thank you, Geoff, not only for the info but for the encouragement. Ronale7 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronale" wrote: > > > > Thanks for the suggestions, Mike. I don't mind doing or sharing the > > research, but have no idea how to get to the "Group by Topic View." > > At worst I'll just take an hour a day to glance through the posts > > sequentially. Should be finished by 2014 . > > Geoff: > Oh, much earlier than that. 2013 at the very latest... > :-) > > As suggested, use the message number search box to get to 68149 > which should display the individual post on its own. > > At the bottom of the post, you should find all the linked messages - > there are 29 I think. Read through them and then go back to the Old > Admin Files to find the start number of the next chapter etc. > > An alternative route is, if you want to check the number of links, when > you get post 68149 on the screen, select message list, which will display > 68119-68149 and then click on Group by Topic which will tell you > how many linked posts there are and the date of the latest one. Click > on the title and away you go (I hope). > > Have fun. > From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 15:09:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:09:32 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178034 Potioncat: > I don't think Arthur was poisoned, he was bleeding just like Snape. > Harry commented on the amount of blood. Nagini's venom seemed to > prevent the wound from healing, rather than killing. But, this is > from my memory, not a canon review. Ceridwen: Harry dreamed about Arthur's attack through his VoldyVision. It took, I would say, nearly half an hour, perhaps longer, for Dumbledore to send help. Harry woke his dorm mates, Neville went for McGonagall, Harry had to explain what he had seen and convince her that it wasn't just a dream but something more; they went to Dumbledore's office and told him, and he sent two former Heads to the Ministry and St. Mungo's respectively to try and help. The Head who went to the Ministry said he had to yell a while before anyone heard. There was copious amounts of blood, three strikes by the snake, and the satisfying crunch of bone. The dream and its immediate aftermath can be found in OotP, chapter 21: The Eye of the Snake, pages 462-465, and chapter 22: St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Ijuries, pages 466-471. Potioncat: > Hermione had dittny--which she used very quickly to stop Ron from > bleeding. It was in her very big little bag. Ceridwen: Ron's splinch was pretty big, too. It took him a while to recover his strength. Potioncat: *(snip)* > As the reader caught up in the events I am furious that neither Harry > nor Hermione tried to help Snape--even if it wouldn't have worked. Ceridwen: Hermione sank below the sub-sub-basement for me here. Miss Level- headed in a Crisis, and all she can do is conjure a phial? Sorry. She was level-headed enough to bounce-Apparate when Yaxley grabbed onto her after leaving the MoM, she could have remembered her carefully-planned store of dittany. Instead, she came off as Redshirt number two, giving Kirk whatever he needs, with far less effective results. Potioncat: > I agree with Pippin. That neither Harry nor Hermione tried to save > Snape was tragic. Ceridwen: That part of Pippin's post was so depressing! Both Harry and Hermione suffered in my estimations of them in that scene even before her post, perhaps more than in any other scene but the Ravenclaw Cruciatus. It was tragic, and unnecessary. Harry was not a hero, he was just a kid reacting, nothing more. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 15:15:13 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:15:13 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178035 > Potioncat: > After the shock of DH had worn off, when the list had opened up, and > someone wrote that Snape was dying from poison, I thought poison > would have been ironic given Snape's comment to Umbridge,-- something > along the line of, "Unfortunately, most poisons leave very little > time for truth-telling." zgirnius: The exact line was "The only trouble is that most venoms act too fast to give the victim much time for truth-telling." I think the irony was fully intended; Rowling already knew Snape was going to die of the bite of avenomous snake when she wrote that line. > Potioncat: > I agree with Pippin. That neither Harry nor Hermione tried to save > Snape was tragic. zgirnius: Indeed, a futile attempt to put some dittany drops on the wound would have been nice. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 15:46:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:46:31 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > > After the shock of DH had worn off, when the list had opened up, > and > > someone wrote that Snape was dying from poison, I thought poison > > would have been ironic given Snape's comment to Umbridge,-- > something > > along the line of, "Unfortunately, most poisons leave very little > > time for truth-telling." > > zgirnius: > The exact line was "The only trouble is that most venoms act too fast > to give the victim much time for truth-telling." > > I think the irony was fully intended; Rowling already knew Snape was > going to die of the bite of avenomous snake when she wrote that line. > > > Potioncat: > > I agree with Pippin. That neither Harry nor Hermione tried to save > > Snape was tragic. > > zgirnius: > Indeed, a futile attempt to put some dittany drops on the wound would > have been nice. > Carol responds: I'm staying out of the debate on what Harry and Hermione should have done. They were both in shock and thought that Snape was a murderer, and they did do what he requested, which was not to save him but to collect the memories and, in Harry's case, look into his eyes. Whether this action was reprehensible or merely understandable under the circumstances, I leave to the individual reader. It was certainly tragic. As to whether Snape died from the venom or the loss of blood, I'd say that Zara's evidence is fairly persuasive. Apparently Nagini was not attacking Arthur to kill (despite JKR's original intentions) any more than she was trying to kill Harry in the Bathilda chapter, but in Snape's case, she was ordered to kill (just as he ordered the Basilisk to kill Moaning Myrtle, only not by a look). However, there's also the location of the bite or bites. Arthur was struck in the ribs, one of which was broken. Snape was bitten on the neck, and venom or no venom, if his carotid artery was sliced open, he would have lost blood quickly and died within minutes without help. We know from the second chapter of DH, where Harry cuts his hand on the mirror, that he hasn't learned to heal a wound magically, a deficiency in his education that you'd think he would remedy by consulting a book, or consulting the walking book, Hermione, who, if she didn't know the spell herself, would at least know where to find it. Instead, we have foreshadowing that Harry is going to need that spell and not know it. But even in the case of Ron's splinching (when did splinching ever cause bleeding before? Susan Bones didn't bleed, IIRC), Hermione uses dittany (which presumably heals the skin but doesn't replace the chunk taken out of Ron's arm). Again, we have an inconsistency; in HBP, Sectumsempra (admittedly, Dark magic that apparently requires a countercurse that only Snape knows) is healed by a spell, and Snape recommends dittany only to prevent scarring. DD heals a cut on his hand with a presumably different silent spell; no dittany involved. In DH, dittany suddenly assumes healing properties that it didn't have before and the healing spell disappears. Yet Hermione, who has dittany in her bag, doesn't think to produce it (rather like Slughorn, who doesn't think to produce a bezoar when Ron is poisoned). Snape himself would know a healing spell if there was one, but he was presumably too weak to lift a wand. Either the spell was too complex to teach them instantly or he chose not to tell it to them. The memories were more important to him, and after that, he was perhaps too far gone, or maybe he knew that the venom would prevent the healing spell from working. It's tragic. It's ironic. It's a misunderstanding resolved too late. My only consolation is that Harry was there to fulfill Snape's last requests and that Snape succeeded in giving him those messages, one of them crucial for Harry's mission, the others crucial for understanding Snape and setting aside his desire for vengeance. (That and the afterlife: he died redeemed and, I like to believe, woke to find Lily looking into his eyes.) At least he died accomplishing something important. Think how he would have felt had he failed in that last mission and died alone. Carol, thinking of "Physician, heal thyself" and wishing that Snape could have done so From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 17 16:56:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:56:02 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ceridwen: > Hermione sank below the sub-sub-basement for me here. Miss Level- > headed in a Crisis, and all she can do is conjure a phial? Sorry. > She was level-headed enough to bounce-Apparate when Yaxley grabbed > onto her after leaving the MoM, she could have remembered her > carefully-planned store of dittany. Instead, she came off as > Redshirt number two, giving Kirk whatever he needs, with far less > effective results. Geoff: Yes, but remember that Hermione has her moments, beautiful but (fortunately) rare... Your comments immediately took me back to: '"Shut up, I'm trying to remember how to kill it!" said Hermione. "Well, hurry up, I can't breathe!" Harry gasped, wrestling with it as it curled around his chest. "Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare... What did Professor Sprout say? It likes the dark and the damp..." "So light a fire!" Harry choked. "Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands. "HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" "Oh, right!" said Hermione and she whipped out her wand, muttered something and sent a jet of the same kind of flames she had used on Snape at the plant.' (PS "Through the Trapdoor" p.202 UK edition) Definitely not one of her better moments.... As she says later in the same chapter: "...Books! And cleverness! There are more important things..." (ibid. p.208) - like the practical application of the same. :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 17:04:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:04:39 -0000 Subject: The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178038 Lorelei wrote: > > I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the Weasley family poor. My first thought is it was simply a way to separate them from the rest of the elitist pure bloods. However, it was also written that the fact Harry had money and Ron didn't was a source of conflict or jealously. It just seemed to me (after rereading COS, POA and especially GOF) that it is mentioned alot to maybe be an important point. Carol responds: I've read the whole thread but decided to go back to the original post rather than respond to a response. Obviously, the Weasleys' lack of wealth in some cases operates as a plot device, and certainly the Burrow is as different from Malfoy Manor as possible. Possibly, JKR believes that penury (as opposed to poverty; cf. the Gaunts) is character-building. However, she doesn't believe that wealth is bad in itself (setting aside her own life; she wasn't rich when she created Harry) or she would not have made the Potters and Sirius Black wealthy, but the Weasleys show that money is not essential for happiness (as long as you have enough to make ends meet; as we see with Ron on the camping trip, basic needs, especially food, *must* be met for people to interact civilly). As someone pointed out, Ron and Harry are envious of each other, one longing for wealth and fame and the other for a family. In the end, Ron can joke about fame and both have a family (the same extended family and wives and children of their own) and at least a sufficient income; I imagine that Harry still has piles of gold in his vault, inherited from both his parents and his godfather, in addition to his income as an Auror (and Ginny's as a Quidditch commentator, IIRC) and Ron has either a job as an Auror or a share in George's shop (JKR can't seem to make up her mind) as well as Hermione's income from her job at the Ministry. The best of both worlds (with fame just something to be dealt with when people stare at your scar). It just occurred to me that Harry's happy ending exactly mirrors JKR's life in 2007 (2017 being just a dream of the future). As for the Weasleys' penury (it isn't poverty) specifically, I think it's there to fuel Percy's ambition and Fred and George's, erm, entrepreneurial spirit (greed, if you prefer), as well as Ron's discontent (the youngest son who gets hand-me-downs from five older brothers: "Why is everything I own rubbish?"). It creates a bit of friction in the Weasley family (not as much as it might in less loving households) and gives "character" to their house, which has a ghoul instead of a House-Elf (if "all the Weasleys have red hair and more children than they can afford" is anything like a true statement, despite the fact that we only glimpse the relatives at Bill and Fleur's wedding and never at Hogwarts, most likely the family House-Elf of Weasley Manor, if there ever was such a being, went to the oldest son of a distant branch of the family hundreds of years before) and gnomes in the garden and it's held together by magic. It's as different from the super-clean, middle-class, suburban Dursley house as possible, and it provides a haven for the Muggle-raised Harry, however ordinary it may seem to Ron. So the Weasleys' lack of wealth ties in with plot (Ron's dress robes, for example) and occasionally provides a source of humor or conflict. It helps to shape character. It makes the point that money isn't everything, however much it serves as a motive for certain characters (we can contrast Bill and Charlie, who seem not to care about it, with their younger brothers, all of whom are motivated by money to some extent, or Arthur, who would rather have a job he enjoys than wealth, with Molly, who is ambitious for her husband and sons and wishes that Fudge and Slughorn and others would recognize Arthur's abilities. Where Ginny fits in, I'm not sure. She seems to echo Ron's discontent in her diary in CoS, but she's only a little girl at that point. Perhaps being the youngest child and only girl in a relatively poor family makes her resourceful, but at least, unlike Ron, she doesn't have to cope with hand-me-downs.) The Burrow itself provides a colorful setting and creates its own atmosphere of eccentricity combined with comfort despite occasional cramped conditions (contrast the Lovegood house, where eccentricity predominates or the Dursleys' house, filled with nice furniture and, unless Dudley's on a diet, good food, and yet without comfort or affection for Harry. Places are as important as characters in terms of their effect on the protagonist, and they help to shape the atmosphere and circumstances in which the action takes place. Life at 4 Privet Drive (with the Dursleys) helps to shape Harry just as life at the Burrow (with his own family) helps to shape Ron. JKR has managed to give her hero a taste of poverty without adding to his burdens by making him actually poor. Ironically, Harry, who has piles of wizard gold in his vault and can afford to give away a thousand galleons to the Weasley Twins to start up their business, is inured to poverty by ten years of sleeping in a cupboard under the stairs and occasional bouts of near-starvation when he's confined to his room or Dudley is on a grapefruit diet. He's as used to wearing hand-me-downs as Ron (or the young Severus Snape)--though he no longer has to wear them in the WW. Ron, in contrast, resents his hand-me-down robes and wand (not having a separate new world in which he's suddenly wealthy) and deals poorly with near-starvation because his mother has always found a way to provide delicious meals. (No doubt it helps to have chickens and a garden, not to mention knowing "householdy" spells.) Circumstances have made Harry indifferent to wealth and Ron covetous of it. Harry, though rich, can deal with hardship (and spiders) and Ron can't--until the Sword of Gryffindor episode (and perhaps the spiders in the Battle of Hogwarts--I've forgotten how he deals with them). At any rate, the penury of the Weasleys is an important motif for a variety of reasons. I'm sure that other posters can add to the list. Harry's wealth, in contrast, is mostly a convenience, IMO. JKR didn't want her hero struggling to find money for books, robes, and a wand when he had so many other things on his plate. And possibly his indifference to both wealth and poverty is just one more virtue that she grants her hero. Thank goodness for his procrastination and obstinacy and outbursts of temper and occasional rashness or he'd be too virtuous to be likeable. Carol, who feels that she's short-changed poor Ron in this post and actually likes him better than Harry or Hermione most of the time From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 17:19:28 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:19:28 -0000 Subject: Should Harry have saved Snape? (was: Could Harry have saved Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178039 Betsy : > What keeps DH stuck in the mud of > repulsiveness rather than rising to > the level of tragedy (IMO) is that > very lack of soul-searching Soul searching in a man of action in a time of war is not an admirable characteristic when there is nothing to search you soul about; in fact it is ridiculous. > Harry *never* comes to the conclusion > that he should have done something to help Snape. I don't know what Harry could have done to help Snape and I don't know why Harry would even want to help Snape. For whatever reason Snape had done a very good job making certain Harry hated him. Snape did not have to treat Harry for 6 years like he was something he'd scraped off his shoe but he chouse to do so, he could have told Harry he loved his mother and explained why he killed Dumbledore but he told Harry nothing, and now he reaps the consequences of that. Harry was looking at one Death Eater killing another Death Eater, and if it was me I'd be thinking "Good, one less Death Eater to worry about". Snape was determined that Harry not be his ally while he was alive, and he got his wish. Dumbledore didn't seem to think it was a good idea that Harry knew nothing about the best side of Snape either, but Snape insisted. > I don't recall any text where Harry > thinks he did wrong. And I don't recall any text where Harry did wrong. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 17 17:28:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:28:26 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178040 > > >>Pippin: > > What's missing is the soul-searching the heroes went > > through to reach that conclusion. > > > > Harry, of the "saving people thing" didn't even think of saving > > Snape. That's not repulsive, IMO, it's tragic. > > > > Betsy Hp: > What keeps DH stuck in the mud of repulsiveness rather than rising to > the level of tragedy (IMO) is that very lack of soul-searching you > mentioned. Harry *never* comes to the conclusion that he should have > done something to help Snape. I don't recall any text where Harry > thinks he did wrong. > Julie:. But when I read the book I never had the impression that Snape *was* saveable (if that's a word!). Pippin: Oh, I agree there wasn't much hope for Snape once Nagini had struck him. The trouble is, Harry knew that Voldemort was about to kill, he could sense it. He even wonders if Snape can feel it too. Several times he has a clear view of Voldemort. Though he couldn't have killed Voldie, he could have used expelliarmus or thrown a shield charm between Voldemort and Snape as he does later between Voldemort and Neville. I agree there isn't any text that shows Harry thinking he did wrong, or rather, did what was easy rather than what was right. All we have is "he did not know what he felt as he saw Snape's white face, and the fingers trying to staunch the bloody wound at his neck." But this goes to solving the problem of Harry's change of heart towards Snape on our own, not by having it explained to us. This might be considered a weakness in a novel, but it is the strength of fairy stories -- they allow the unconscious to suggest its own meanings for what has happened. The explanation may change as the reader grows in understanding of the story and of himself. That this is intentional is shown, IMO, by the way Harry's understanding of the Tale of the Three Brothers grows and changes through the story. "Adult intepretations, correct as they may be, rob the child of the opportunity to feel that he, on his own, through repeated hearing and ruminating about the story, has coped successfully with a difficult situation. We grow, we find meaning in life and security in ourselves by having understood and solved personal problems on our own, not by having them explained to us by others."-- Bruno Bettelheim, *The Uses of Enchantment -the meaning and importance of fairy tales.* Pippin From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 18:27:37 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:27:37 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178041 Ceridwen: Hermione sank below the sub-sub-basement for me here. Miss Level- headed in a Crisis, and all she can do is conjure a phial? Sorry. She was level-headed enough to bounce-Apparate when Yaxley grabbed onto her after leaving the MoM, she could have remembered her carefully-planned store of dittany. Instead, she came off as Redshirt number two, giving Kirk whatever he needs, with far less effective results. Tiffany: Hermione has some moments of sheer brilliance & being a good heroine, but most of the time she seems to not have some of them also. I loved how she was able to hold her own in SS & have some good moments, but after then most of her ideas weren't the most well-developed & thought out around. Her ideas & use of spells after leaving MoM was nothing short of sheer brilliance on her part, but those are few & far between for her. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 18:44:34 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:44:34 -0000 Subject: Should Harry have saved Snape? (was: Could Harry have saved Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > I don't know what Harry could have done to help Snape and I don't know > why Harry would even want to help Snape. For whatever reason Snape had > done a very good job making certain Harry hated him. Snape did not > have to treat Harry for 6 years like he was something he'd scraped off > his shoe but he chouse to do so, he could have told Harry he loved his > mother and explained why he killed Dumbledore but he told Harry > nothing, and now he reaps the consequences of that. > > Harry was looking at one Death Eater killing another Death Eater, and > if it was me I'd be thinking "Good, one less Death Eater to worry > about". Snape was determined that Harry not be his ally while he was > alive, and he got his wish. Dumbledore didn't seem to think it was a > good idea that Harry knew nothing about the best side of Snape either, > but Snape insisted. Alla: Okay, I most certainly do NOT begrudge Harry for not saving Snape for all the reasons you so eloquently described. Besides those reasons who says that Harry would have been succesful necessarily? The fact that curse backfired at the end no guarantee that it would have happened in the Shack, no? So, yeah, I think Harry performed a public service to all future generations of Hogwarts children for not saving Snape. Not that I think he could or that he did it deliberately ( just saying in general, not saying that anybody claims he did it deliberately), I think he was just shocked to witness another murder right in front of him and maybe he saw the Tower again, who knows. BUT BUT BUT having said all that, I do think that it would have been nice to see Harry attempting to save Snape ( Please, but NOT saving him). NOT for Snape definitely, but for Harry, would have been pleased to see his saving people thing manifest itself even if for person he hated ( justifiably so as far as I am concerned). JMO, Alla. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 18:48:18 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:48:18 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178043 Geoff: > Yes, but remember that Hermione has her moments, beautiful but > (fortunately) rare... > > Your comments immediately took me back to: *(snip quote)* > (PS "Through the Trapdoor" p.202 UK edition) > > Definitely not one of her better moments.... > > As she says later in the same chapter: > > "...Books! And cleverness! There are more important things..." > (ibid. p.208) > > - like the practical application of the same. Ceridwen: Hermione was twelve years old in PS/SS. She was eighteen in DH. She has grown and shown herself to be more than the witchling who probably forgot that she had magic a couple of times when it was still new to her. Ceridwen. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Oct 17 19:01:24 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:01:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Part I Questions: > > 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came > in? > Allie: I wished Harry had explained to her why he reacted that way. All he says is, "Oh, I'm - I'm sorry." A simple, "I thought you were someone else," would have sufficed. No need to specify. She may know it anyway, I'm sure someone in her life told her she looked like her sister. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 17 19:27:22 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:27:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178045 Mike: Part I Questions: 1. What did you think of Harry's greeting of Andromeda when she came in? Tiffany: I thought the "Oh, I'm - I'm sorry" explanation was a bit lacking on his part. No need to detail the reasons, but just a simple "you looked like someone I knew" or "I thought you were someone else". I'm sure she could be easily confused for other folks, esp. if there's someone in her family that looks like her. I've rarely been confused for my father David or brother Raymond, but my sister Brenda & I look alike, save the eye & hair color, so we've been confused for each often. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 19:36:57 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:36:57 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178046 Alla: I do not believe that somebody who would have still had in his head those thoughts would have agreed to die for house elf, or goblin or werewolf or any non - human race. He did not just retaliate against Voldie, he saved a life, no? He did not just steal a horcrux, he drank that horrible horrible thing. He would never enjoy the consequences of his retaliation, the only satisfaction for him, for this poor eighteen year old to know that his elf would live, is it not? Yes, if ALL that Reg did was stealing the locket, I agree, I would have asked for motivations, for sure. Luckily for me, he did something that I do not need motivation for - he saved a life of house elf. Terrible violent bigots in my mind would never do it. JMO of course. Prep0strus: I think maybe I can imagine worse things, then - because I can picture someone who would save his elf but still be horrible in other regards. I don't think Regulus just started loving Kreacher. I think he cared for him the whole time - when he joined up with the DE, when he spouted evil nonsense about Muggleborns... it's so hard to define what a house elf is. They seem more than pets but not as much as humans. So a real world analogy is almost impossible. But I think people would die for friends and possibly even servants on either side of a war, and depending which side you're on... it doesn't always have to be the Nazis. Maybe someone in the southern states of the US who believed slavery was fine might die for someone they cared about while still fighting for something the rest of us think is wrong. It's a harder analogy because Kreacher is an elf, but also, he didn't just become an elf, and I don't see that Regulus would have just started caring for him. He was always an elf that Regulus cared about - while he did and said terrible things. His sacrifice for Kreacher is admirable, but I'm not sure it's evidence of a change of heart about other things. > > Eggplant: > > His relationship with Kreature although very interesting and touching > is not the defining characteristic of Regulus; it is the fact that he > gave his life to strike Voldemort in the spot it hurt him the most, in > his Horcrux. > Prep0strus: This is interesting to me, as you and Alla reach the same conclusions each using a different piece of the two pieces of information we have. Meanwhile, I don't find either sufficient - I don't think we understand his motivation for stealing the locket well enough to ascribe 'goodness' to it, and I don't think his love of Kreacher necessarily signals his 'goodness' in other areas. Eggplant: > And I don't give a hoot in hell what Regulus believed. I don't care > what thoughts were dancing around in his head. As long as he can do > astronomically good things like that let the man think what he wants > to think. I don't believe in thought crime. > > We most certainly do disagree! If you do the right thing for the wrong > reason it's still the right thing to do, and it you do the wrong thing > for the right reason it's still the wrong thing to do. > > And we can never be certain of anybody's motivations, but we can be > certain of their actions. The ultimate question is, if Regulus had > never been born would the world have been a better place? I don't > believe it would have been. > Prep0strus: This response totally startled and surprised me. I think you're wrong that we can never be certain of anyone's motivations - in literature. Often we can be very certain, because we can see inside a character's head, or the author simply tells us. But that you actually care more for the action than the motivation is not a way I ever would have even thought to read a book. Or your evaluation of 'thought crimes'. I mean... in real life I don't think someone can be prosecuted for wanting to do a crime they didn't commit. However, I believe that someone's motivations for when they commit a crime certainly come into play, at least during sentencing. If someone hurts someone who they believe is hurting another person in trying to rescue that person... does that not make them less morally culpable? If someone tries to shoot someone, but misses, does that make them a better person? I think intent, while not an adequate way to decide someone's fate in criminal court, is a very important way we judge the morality of someone, especially a character in a story. If Regulus was trying to do something bad, or if he was still a bigot who simply wanted revenge on his old leader, maybe so he could be a NEW dark lord... he is not, by any means, a good guy. Your last question is interesting... would the world be a better place had Regulus never been born? It's hard to say, again, with knowing as little as we do about the character, but my guess? I give (Disclaimer: odds are made up in my own head, based on nothing) ~70% odds that the world would be roughly the same, ~20%odds the world would be better, and ~10% odds the world would be worse. I say this because they would have gotten the locket anyway. Less rigmarole - Dumbledore and Harry would simply have gotten the locket. There are of course unknowns - what evil did Regulus do as a young Death Eater and as a full fledged Death Eater? This is where I think the world might have been better without him. Then, there are the even greater intangibles - what eddies did his actions cause that might have changed things, making the world worse in ways we don't know - maybe Harry wouldn't have met Aberforth, convincing him and his bar passage to help. Maybe they wouldn't have befriended Kreacher and gotten his help. Etc. But without Regulus, who knows what Kreacher would have become? Yes, he had Momma Black corrupting him, but Regulus wouldn't have continued the corruption. And he wouldn't have almost died because Voldy wouldn't have gotten his hands on him. I just really don't think we know how the world would have been without him, just as I don't think we can judge the type of person he was on the few snippets of information we have about him. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From easimm at yahoo.com Wed Oct 17 21:37:37 2007 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:37:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178047 When Narcissa lied to Voldemort that Harry was dead, Harry reasoned that she lied because she wouldn't be allowed into the Castle quickly if she wasn't going in as part of a victory march. Perhaps all the stress of dying and coming back muddled Harry's reasoning. The death eaters would have had no trouble finishing Harry off there and then if she had said he was alive. If wands didn't work, at least one of them had a knife. It makes more sense that Narcissa lied to end Voldemort's reign. She had nothing to gain from having Voldemort alive. She and her husband were no longer valued death eaters. They were terrified. Voldemort was using their property and their son as he pleased. Narcissa would have heard Harry referred to as "the chosen one" to stop Voldemort, and when she heard the miracle of his heartbeat, she would have known it to be true. She risked her life, and her husband's and son's lives, in the hope that Harry really could kill Voldemort and end their misery. I have been away from this site for a long while, and while I did search to see whether this was mentioned, I could have missed it. Snorkacks have very long hibernations. Sorry in advance. -Snorky From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 18 02:20:16 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:20:16 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178048 > Ceridwen: > Harry dreamed about Arthur's attack through his VoldyVision. It > took, I would say, nearly half an hour, perhaps longer, for > Dumbledore to send help. Harry woke his dorm mates, Neville went for > McGonagall, Harry had to explain what he had seen and convince her > that it wasn't just a dream but something more; they went to > Dumbledore's office and told him, and he sent two former Heads to the > Ministry and St. Mungo's respectively to try and help. Julie: Thanks for the canon. I didn't recall the specifics, but I did recall that it took awhile to get help to Arthur. And as you say, he bled for half an hour before help came. There was a copious amount of blood after that length of time, but it just proves that Snape's injury was much more severe. Arthur is still alive if very weak from loss of blood after some thirty minutes, while Snape bled for perhaps five minutes at most before he died. Snape's injury was much more serious than Arthur's, which makes sense if his carotid artery was severed. As with the femoral or aortal arteries, a person would bleed out very fast. While Arthur apparently bled continuously before help came, he was clearly not bleeding from a major artery, or he would have been well dead by the time help arrived. I'm not saying Harry or even Hermione put this together in their heads via logical deduction, but I think when they approached Snape he was already at death's door, and they recognized that fact, even if without the conscious thought process. > Potioncat: > > As the reader caught up in the events I am furious that neither > Harry > > nor Hermione tried to help Snape--even if it wouldn't have worked. > > Ceridwen: > Hermione sank below the sub-sub-basement for me here. Miss Level- > headed in a Crisis, and all she can do is conjure a phial? Sorry. > She was level-headed enough to bounce-Apparate when Yaxley grabbed > onto her after leaving the MoM, she could have remembered her > carefully-planned store of dittany. Instead, she came off as > Redshirt number two, giving Kirk whatever he needs, with far less > effective results. Julie: As a reader, I didn't feel the same. Yes, I briefly wondered if Hermione might say something (I think I'd forgotten she had the dittany with her) about getting Snape help, but as a reader I recognized from the amount of blood and the torn throat that it was already too late. I knew without a doubt that Snape was going to die. Now I would have been happy if Hermione had pulled out the dittany, or she and Harry had mentioned the concept of getting help or saving Snape, but I didn't fault them for it at all. Partly because, as I said, I think they did recognize that Snape was a goner, and partly because I agree with Eggplant, sort of. Not that Harry *shouldn't* save Snape, but that it wouldn't immediately occur to him that Snape needed or even deserved saving. After all, I wouldn't expect Harry to have tried to save Bellatrix or Avery or one of the Carrows if one of them was standing in front of Voldemort, even if Harry was getting the same sense of danger and doom he felt when Voldemort and Snape were confronting each other. Should or would Harry jump out and try to disarm Voldemort, a probably impossible task which would not only endanger him but also Ron and Hermione, to save a Death Eater who has given his allegiance to Voldemort and is apparently as determined as Voldemort to rid the WW of Mudbloods and their supporters, not to mention Harry himself? I wouldn't expect Harry to do so, and this is exactly who Snape is to Harry, another Death Eater who wants him and many others in the WW dead. Even if Harry had some subconscious doubts and confusion over Snape (as I think he probably did, and this showed in his confusion over what to feel when Snape was dying), there's no reason I would expect him to try to save Snape before Nagini bites him, or even after, especially not when it's clear that Snape is almost certainly mortally injured. That's not to say in another circumstance, say if Harry had been given some reason to truly doubt Snape's loyalty to Voldemort (Dumbledore's memories or some such other device we hypothesized before DH), I would expect Harry to act as he did in DH. But under the circumstances, with Snape presumed an unrepentant DE and with his death so immediately imminent, I didn't expect any "saving" action from Harry. But that's just my opinion, Julie From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Oct 18 03:47:39 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:47:39 -0000 Subject: FILK: Endgame Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178049 An excerpt from the half-completed DH musical Crux....... Endgame (DH, Chap. 34) To the tune of the same name http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20dPYiAErU0 Dedicated to Ann (THE SCENE: The Great Hall. HARRY witnesses the carnage and bloodshed of the Great Hall ? every casualty floods him with grief and guilt. As he resolves what he must do, he comes across NEVILLE.) HARRY: Neville, if you see a snake Of the Dark Lord Cut off its head With Godric's sword Though Herm and Ron Both know this fact They might not be back (NEVILLE takes his arm in understanding, as HARRY departs) I must go to my demise Though I'm not keen On acting out John 3:16 (HARRY leaves Hogwarts and makes his way toward the Forbidden Forest, as he is flooded with utter hopelessness and dejection) Now I truly see Dumble's betrayal He has Chosen Me To greatly fail The elegance of this System is unsparing. Deep into the woods I have to enter Can't get past the hoods Of those dementors Expect no Patronus when I'm so despairing. I've nothing left to hope in ? But wait, the Snitch says, "At the Close I Open." The Stone of Resurrection Gives a new direction For my ordained mission to Let the Dark Lord catch me - The ones I love the most come forth to fetch me! They find me on this trail >From straight beyond the Veil To my aid now avail themselves. JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS: We've come here to give You inspiration Take the Chosen One >From this location Helping you to reach your highest consummation! HARRY, JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS: There is just one thing I/You can be sure of It's the strength you/we bring To me/you of pure love The Dark Arts can never Comprehend its power JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS: So you'll leave this sphere A valiant hero Bravely you'll appear At Vold's Ground Zero And even make it there A bit less than an hour (HARRY and THE QUARTET begin their procession to VOLDEMORT'S camp) HARRY, JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS (fortissimo): We stride to Voldy's gallows That's how we choose to end The Deathly Hallows We move in total silence Towards Eaters and giants, Defenseless except my/your heart. JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS: Your death will not hurt you Thanks to your stellar qualities of virtue It's like falling asleep >From this cold life you leap And then the next adventure starts HARRY, JAMES, LILY, SIRIUS & REMUS: Up ahead we see My/Your destination Seize my/your destiny To save the nation Voldy wants that piece of you For termination. (The stone falls from HARRY'S hand, and, too frightened to be afraid, he enters all alone the Death Eaters camp. HAGRID is tightly bound to a nearby tree.) VOLDEMORT: He isn't going to show - HARRY (stepping forth to reveal himself): And at long last I've come to sever ev'ry link I have with life .. HARRY remains silent and immobile until the very end of the scene HAGRID: Harry, do not be so daft - !! YAXLEY: Just kill him now And we can march back in our triumph to Hogwarts! BELLATRIX: And on this day we lay a curse on everything that's good! CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS: Kill him! HAGRID (increasingly desperate with every repetition): Harry! CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS: Kill him! HAGRID: Harry! CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS: Kill him! HAGRID: Harry! CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS: Kill him! HAGRID (screaming): Harry! Harry! CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS: To us you have come In desperation Replay Dad and Mum's Capitulation BELLATRIX: Forcing you to reach your lowest degradation! VOLDEMORT (to Harry): You're about to lose your life To one whose fame Copyrighted "He-Who's-Not-Named." My worst foe I tame With Kedavra! (A flash of green light. HARRY falls lifeless to the ground. White- out.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 36 new filks) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 05:18:30 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:18:30 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178050 > Prep0strus: > > I think maybe I can imagine worse things, then - because I can > picture someone who would save his elf but still be horrible in > other regards. I don't think Regulus just started loving Kreacher. > I think he cared for him the whole time - when he joined up with > the DE, when he spouted evil nonsense about Muggleborns... > > - while he did and said terrible things. Mike: You've already said that we don't have enough information about Regulus to draw a conclusion either way on his "goodness". Which makes these musings curious. In OotP, Sirius told us his parents were pureblood maniacs that agreed with Voldemort's ideas - originally. Then he adds, "convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal ... my idiot brother, soft enough to believe them ..." and "But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first." Regulus was probably about 14 when Sirius severed ties to his family. He joined when 16 and died at age 17. Sirius obviously held his family in extreme disfavor. He quite possibly exaggerating both his parents' and Regulus' true leanings. Yet Sirius still includes the line about "Black royalty" when describing his parents attitudes, the ones that Regulus was "soft enough to believe". IMO, this line more accurately portrays why Regulus stayed on his parents side of the fence. He was young enough and pliable enough to enjoy the perception of royalty. My thinking is that, though Regulus was a follower of Voldemort, it was him parroting his parents views that led him to become a DE. Further, I perceive that Regulus was enamored with the idea of royalty, of being in charge more than belief in the pureblood dogma. I see that as a much more likely idea for a 16-year-old to latch onto, than the more nebulous pureblood fanaticism that has no obvious benefits to one of his age. Does that make him a better person, if my postulation is correct? In my mind, yes. Beleiving your parents, parroting their ideals is not admirable in and of itself. But thinking yourself special is much less distasteful than espousing bigoted pulchitrude. Then, by sacrificing his life for the dual purpose of bringing down Voldemort and revenging his House Elf, it seems Regulus has even abandoned his sense of royal entitlement. All within a year of joining. Lastly, as to whether Regulus had other acts of despicability to his credit as a DE, he was still in school. Dumbledore's school. He had but one summer away from school to be involved in some unknown atrocities. And at 16, being underage, what are the chances that Voldemort would assign him to some activities that would have been recorded by the MoM with the Trace? I find it highly unlikely Regulus was asked to be involved in anything criminal. > Prep0strus: > His sacrifice for Kreacher is admirable, but I'm not sure it's > evidence of a change of heart about other things. Mike: This assumes he needed to change his heart in the first place. Plus, like Alla said, I have a hard time reconciling a bigoted pureblood with the act of giving up your life for a House Elf. Besides, wouldn't bringing down the leader of the pureblood movement be an anathema to a true pureblood dogmatist? > Prep0strus: > This is interesting to me, as [Eggplant] and Alla reach the same > conclusions each using a different piece of the two pieces of > information we have. Meanwhile, I don't find either sufficient - I > don't think we understand his motivation for stealing the locket > well enough to ascribe 'goodness' to it, Mike: It shows me that there are two good reasons to believe that Regulus either changed his ways or never had to change them in the first place to be ascribed to the side of 'goodness'. And as you have pointed out, we have *no* evidence that he did or didn't espouse the pureblood mania that his parents believed. The scales seem to be tipped in the favor of good, IMO. > Prep0strus: > > > If Regulus was trying to do something bad, or if he was still a > bigot who simply wanted revenge on his old leader, maybe so he > could be a NEW dark lord... he is not, by any means, a good guy. Mike: This is where your argument falls apart for me. I do ascribe to the old tenet - 'actions speak louder than words'. Insofar as Regulus is concerned, I agree with Eggplant, his actions are measureable while his mindset is unknowable. You have been postulating worst possible scenarios, except you have practically no basis to form these postulations other than unsubstantiated, like-minded parallelism to other DEs or the elder Blacks. OTOH, there is concrete evidence that Reggie ended up as an anti- Voldemort advocate. That he went to the cave with the intent of dying, witness both his note in the locket and his instructions to Kreacher, puts the lie to any further selfish motivations on his part. I don't know that Reggie was truly likeable, but I'm confidant that he is absolved of any nasty tendencies, in the end. Mike From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 18 11:34:10 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:34:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178051 "curlyhornedsnorkack" snip > > It makes more sense that Narcissa lied to end Voldemort's reign. She had nothing to gain from having Voldemort alive. She and her husband were no longer valued death eaters. They were terrified. snip She risked her life, and her husband's and son's lives, in the hope that Harry really could kill Voldemort and end their misery. snip Potioncat: I haven't seen this idea either, and I think you're right! In fact, I think Narcissa had been disatisfied with DE-hood for a while, or she wouldn't have gone to Snape for Draco's protection. Before DH, I thought she might have insisted on Hogwarts for Draco as a way of protecting him from either DEs or the Dark Arts. Turns out he would have been safer at Durmstrang. > Snorky: > I have been away from this site for a long while, and while I did > search to see whether this was mentioned, I could have missed it. > Snorkacks have very long hibernations. Sorry in advance. Potioncat: I'm glad you're back! Jump and start posting! From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 12:34:21 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:34:21 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Prep0strus: > > > > I think maybe I can imagine worse things, then - because I can > > picture someone who would save his elf but still be horrible in > > other regards. I don't think Regulus just started loving Kreacher. > > I think he cared for him the whole time - when he joined up with > > the DE, when he spouted evil nonsense about Muggleborns... > > > > - while he did and said terrible things. > > Mike: > You've already said that we don't have enough information about > Regulus to draw a conclusion either way on his "goodness". Which > makes these musings curious. > > In OotP, Sirius told us his parents were pureblood maniacs that > agreed with Voldemort's ideas - originally. Then he > adds, "convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal ... my > idiot brother, soft enough to believe them ..." and "But I bet my > parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at > first." Regulus was probably about 14 when Sirius severed ties > to his family. He joined when 16 and died at age 17. lizzyben: It's pretty clear that Regulus' family supported Voldemort's agenda, as did most of his Housemates, probably. He'd probably also heard endless rants about how Sirius broke his mother's heart by running away, and how he was the only son who could fulfill the Black family name. The way was smoothed for Regulus to become a Death Eater just as the way was smoothed for James to become an Order member. Going against that smoothed path takes immense courage, and Regulus did that in the end. One reason that the whole Slyths=bigots thing annoys is because it seems to overlook the crucial role that family & environment play in forming people's ideology. Most children become members of the same religion as their parents; most join the same political party as their family, because that is what they have been taught to believe. So taking a child like Regulus, and steeping him in pure-blood ideology at home, then shipping him to spend his formative years at a hotbed of pureblood bigotry, the wonder would be if he *wasn't* bigoted at the end of that. Teenage boys especially tend to join gangs in order to gain a sense of identity. The Mauraders had their gang; the gang available for Slytherins was the Death Eaters. Becoming a Death Eater made his family proud, & made him a part of what his friends were doing - just as joining the Order did the same for James Potter. And yet it seems, at the end, Regulus thought for himself & followed his heart rather than his family's teachings. > > Prep0strus: > > His sacrifice for Kreacher is admirable, but I'm not sure it's > > evidence of a change of heart about other things. > > Mike: > This assumes he needed to change his heart in the first place. Plus, > like Alla said, I have a hard time reconciling a bigoted pureblood > with the act of giving up your life for a House Elf. Besides, > wouldn't bringing down the leader of the pureblood movement be an > anathema to a true pureblood dogmatist? lizzyben: And I think it's an interesting contrast that Sirius treated Kreacher badly, while Regulus the Death Eater treated Kreacher with kindness. "Judge a man by how he treats his inferiors" takes on a new ironic twist. It was an act of compassion and love, IMO. And an incredibly heroic act. Could you do the same? I would stand in front of someone who was targeting my baby; I'd probably even die to save the world; but could I decide to drink a tortuous potion and allow an army of Inferi to pull me into the lake forever, to die alone, my good acts never known by anyone, in order to save - Kreacher? Uh, give me a minute... Regulus did something that was totally altruistic & selfless. > > Prep0strus: > > This is interesting to me, as [Eggplant] and Alla reach the same > > conclusions each using a different piece of the two pieces of > > information we have. Meanwhile, I don't find either sufficient - I > > don't think we understand his motivation for stealing the locket > > well enough to ascribe 'goodness' to it, > > Mike: > It shows me that there are two good reasons to believe that Regulus > either changed his ways or never had to change them in the first > place to be ascribed to the side of 'goodness'. And as you have > pointed out, we have *no* evidence that he did or didn't espouse the > pureblood mania that his parents believed. The scales seem to be > tipped in the favor of good, IMO. lizzyben: We have no way of knowing people's real intentions. All we can judge them on are their actions, in the end. I don't like this idea that we can judge people solely based on how pure & good their intent is, because it seems to make the same mistake that the series does. IE if someone on the "good" side does something horrible, it's OK cause their intent is pure. Harry can Crucio someone because he has such good "intentions", etc. Torture is torture, no matter who's doing it. Bravery is bravery, no matter who's doing it. Regulus did a brave, heroic act to stop LV and save Kreacher. > > Prep0strus: > > > > > > If Regulus was trying to do something bad, or if he was still a > > bigot who simply wanted revenge on his old leader, maybe so he > > could be a NEW dark lord... he is not, by any means, a good guy. lizzyben: You're creating speculations that are directly against what happened in canon. Regulus knew he wasn't getting out of that cave alive. His note says that he will soon die, but that he will die at least knowing that he had ensured that Voldemort would become mortal when he met his match. He had no intent of becoming a "new dark lord". I think Regulus performed the single bravest act in the entire series. He died horribly, alone, with only the hope that he had done something to stop Voldemort from becoming an immortal terror. Regulus didn't have a guru to tell him the right thing to do, he didn't have a cheering squad of dead loved ones, he didn't get to come back to life and fight a heroic battle. He was just trying to do the right thing. And he chose to die himself rather than forcing Kreacher to die in his place - that is an incredibly noble act, IMO. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 18 13:49:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:49:01 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178053 > Mike: > My thinking is that, though Regulus was a follower of Voldemort, it > was him parroting his parents views that led him to become a DE. > Further, I perceive that Regulus was enamored with the idea of > royalty, of being in charge more than belief in the pureblood dogma. > I see that as a much more likely idea for a 16-year-old to latch > onto, than the more nebulous pureblood fanaticism that has no obvious > benefits to one of his age. > > Does that make him a better person, if my postulation is correct? In > my mind, yes. Beleiving your parents, parroting their ideals is not > admirable in and of itself. But thinking yourself special is much > less distasteful than espousing bigoted pulchitrude. Magpie: So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco to? Because they seem exactly the same to me. Being attracted to the DEs is being attracted to evil even if the primary attraction isn't wiping out Muggle-borns--although though Pureblood superiority seems to be exactly the beliefs that Draco and Regulus got from their parents that sent them to the DEs to be "right little heroes." That's how they're special. Espousing bigoted pulchitrude is a way of thinking youself special. I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still agree with Adam's point as I understand it. I still consider him a DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened-- whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge or everyone else and getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those beliefs along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 14:10:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:10:59 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus and some Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178054 Mike: > > Does that make him a better person, if my postulation is correct? > In > > my mind, yes. Beleiving your parents, parroting their ideals is > not > > admirable in and of itself. But thinking yourself special is much > > less distasteful than espousing bigoted pulchitrude. > > Magpie: > So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't > being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the > most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco to? > Because they seem exactly the same to me. < SNIP> Alla: Heee, I am not Mike, cannot speak for him, but can totally say for myself. I can totally agree with you, because I am not willing to say that Regulus was not being racist when he joined. Of course he was IMO. So, yeah. Agreed - exactly the same. Magpie: > I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the > greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still > agree with Adam's point as I understand it. Alla: And **that** is where Draco and Regulus for me stop being exactly the same and become incredibly different. I do not remember Draco making the greatest sacrifice to bring Voldemort down. I mean, you did not claim he did, I am just saying that Regulus for me is a hero, Draco is not for that reason. Magpie: I still consider him a > DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened-- > whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other > beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil > for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying > at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help > the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge or everyone else and > getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those beliefs > along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't. Alla: I already said upthread why I feel I do. Just the simple fact of dying for house elf and hoping that Voldemort's reign will come to end - this to me signals change of heart. OR to contradict myself, maybe indeed Regulus deluded himself into him believing pureblood ideology from the beginning and never did? That is again, not to say that he did not join with thoughts of being a racist, I totally think he did. Just that maybe in his heart of hearts he never was, because if you love house elf that much, could you truly believe in your heart of hearts that purebloods rule and everybody else should die is the way to go? I do not know, I am not sure about this last part (stucks her tongue at Zara). I did know people who claimed that they have jewish best friend, but all other jews are horrible ( substitute for any race or ethnicity). So, I think it is totally possible that Regulus was a true believer in Voldemort's crap and then changed his mind. But I am on the fence. And of course, Snape here comes to mind, whom I honestly think despised Muggleborns with great passion unless their name was Lily. So, I do not know. But whether Regulus was a true racist when he joined or not, and again I think he was ( large part of me, lol), to me it is clear that when he died, he was not. JMO, Alla From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Oct 18 14:57:28 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:57:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36E55340-E646-4241-A23F-59EA804133DE@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178055 On 2007, Oct 18, , at 03:34, potioncat wrote: > "curlyhornedsnorkack" > snip >> >> It makes more sense that Narcissa lied to end Voldemort's reign. She >> had nothing to gain from having Voldemort alive. She and her husband >> were no longer valued death eaters. They were terrified. >> snip >> She risked her life, and her husband's and son's lives, in the hope >> that Harry really could kill Voldemort and end their misery. >> snip > > Potioncat: > I haven't seen this idea either, and I think you're right! In fact, I > think Narcissa had been disatisfied with DE-hood for a while, or she > wouldn't have gone to Snape for Draco's protection. Before DH, I > thought she might have insisted on Hogwarts for Draco as a way of > protecting him from either DEs or the Dark Arts. Turns out he would > have been safer at Durmstrang. I like this reasoning also - better than I like Harry's. But I have one question: why did Narcissa ask Harry if Draco was still alive? Yes, I know that Harry was in the castle a while ago, and she knows this, too, but she knows at least that Harry has been gone from the castle for the time it took for Harry to walk a long ways into the forest, and for Voldemort to "kill" him. Isn't the battle still going on? Couldn't something have happened to Draco in the interim? 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 Oct 18 16:27:53 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:27:53 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178056 > Magpie: > So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't > being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the > most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco to? > Because they seem exactly the same to me. Being attracted to the DEs > is being attracted to evil even if the primary attraction isn't > wiping out Muggle-borns--although though Pureblood superiority seems > to be exactly the beliefs that Draco and Regulus got from their > parents that sent them to the DEs to be "right little heroes." > That's how they're special. Espousing bigoted pulchitrude is a way > of thinking youself special. > > I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the > greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still > agree with Adam's point as I understand it. I still consider him a > DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened-- > whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other > beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil > for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying > at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help > the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge or everyone else and > getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those beliefs > along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't. > > -m > Prep0strus: I think I've pretty much reached an impasse on this discussion, but Magpie has summed up my opinion pretty nicely. Everyone who commented that I was looking for the worst possible explanations of Regulus' behavior was absolutely right - not because I necessarily believe it to be so, but because I was throwing ideas out there that could exist. My personal belief, based on the story? Regulus died a racist. I think he always was one, and died one. I think he always cared for Kreacher, but believed Voldemort cares for him, and shared his beliefs. When Voldemort let Kreacher die, Regulus realized that Voldemort did not care about anything but himself. He discovered he was into some VERY dangerous magic and was perhaps becoming something less than human - something dangerous, scary, and not supported by Regulus' ideology. I don't think Regulus was ever quite prepared for the group he had joined - he was a hate-filled little brat, but not necessarily a murderer. I think, when he died, he realized it was a mistake, and he was, indeed, trying to stop Voldemort, and he was also laying his life on the line for Kreacher. I think, in that sense, he was 'good', but I think he was also a racist jerk who I would have hated. Everything I just said could be disputed. I understand that some people think that by saving Kreacher, that makes him incapable of bigotry. However, I also think that his motivations may have been less heroic, and more twisted in his attempt to take down Voldemort. Someone said I didn't believe there was enough information, so the musings were strange. That's true. I talk a lot about possibilities, but IMHO, there simply isn't enough information for me to form a concrete opinion on the matter. Everything in conjecture and what i'd 'like to think'. And I still believe motivations and beliefs are very important in regards to action. I think in literature we can know them, and they are more interesting and give more information about a character than the action itself. As for Regulus becoming what he was because of his parents... that's another discussion entirely. I don't even personally believe in free will, really, so in that sense, I can't blame anyone for anything. But even if someone has no choice but to become a bigoted murdering monster, that doesn't change what they are... and it doesn't change their beliefs or motivations, just the reasons for them. Regulus may have been raised to be a bigot, but that's not an excuse. Especially as he did have his older brother setting a better example. Others have certainly made up their minds on Regulus - this 'hero' who we never actually meet or learn about why he did what he did. But for me, unless JKR writes 'Regulus Black and the Change of Heart', he will always be a mystery, an unknown. A plot twist even more than a plot device (because his actions didn't, in the end, change very much of what our main characters did), but not someone I can call a hero or a villain. Or, for that matter, the 'good Slytherin'. ;) ~Adam (Prep0strus) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 16:40:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:40:02 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > And I still believe motivations and beliefs are very important in > regards to action. I think in literature we can know them, and they > are more interesting and give more information about a character than > the action itself. Alla: They are, I just see some exceptions to the rule ( not many, mind you), but Regulus' action to me falls within them. Yeah, I guess agree to disagree time. Prep0strus: Regulus may > have been raised to be a bigot, but that's not an excuse. Especially > as he did have his older brother setting a better example. Alla: Oh yeah, I agree with this. Prep0strus: > Others have certainly made up their minds on Regulus - this 'hero' who > we never actually meet or learn about why he did what he did. But for > me, unless JKR writes 'Regulus Black and the Change of Heart', he will > always be a mystery, an unknown. A plot twist even more than a plot > device (because his actions didn't, in the end, change very much of > what our main characters did), but not someone I can call a hero or a > villain. Or, for that matter, the 'good Slytherin'. ;) Alla: Obviously time to disagree, but I am truly at loss to see where you are coming from in regards to Regulus and am very surprised, since I often at least see where you are coming from. I mean, I am so not understanding how you can subscribe any sort of selfish motivations to him when we **know** that he went to die, not hoping to gain anything for himself, not to see this revenge that he was trying to execute upon Voldemort. Nothing for himself, NOTHING, just the horrible death by one of the worst means possible. At seventeen or eighteen. I certainly can compare him to Harry, who also had no clue that he is not coming back, but I found it to be incredibly noble and heroic, yes. So to me he is hero without parenthesis. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 16:50:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:50:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178058 "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > > > > > It makes more sense that Narcissa lied to end Voldemort's reign. She had nothing to gain from having Voldemort alive. She and her husband were no longer valued death eaters. They were terrified. > > She risked her life, and her husband's and son's lives, in the hope that Harry really could kill Voldemort and end their misery. > > > Potioncat: > I haven't seen this idea either, and I think you're right! In fact, I think Narcissa had been disatisfied with DE-hood for a while, or she wouldn't have gone to Snape for Draco's protection. Before DH, I thought she might have insisted on Hogwarts for Draco as a way of protecting him from either DEs or the Dark Arts. Turns out he would have been safer at Durmstrang. Carol responds: I agree that the Malfoys had nothing to gain from Voldemort's return, though I wouldn't put it past Lucius to try to regain his old position as LV's right-hand man with Snape dead if LV had won. (He could have acquired a new wand somehow.) And I don't think that Narcissa's sentiments would have changed toward Voldie if he hadn't abused and disgraced her family, and, especially, endangered her son. I don't think that she was "dissatisfied with DEhood" per se (JKR says that she didn't have the Mark) and she seems loyal enough in HBP and DH in everything that doesn't relate to Draco. I also don't deny that Harry's perception of her motives could be faulty (though I think he sees more clearly after King's Cross than ever before, in particular a recognition of the humanity of the Slytherins). My question is, suppose that Draco had died in the RoR and Harry had told Narcissa that Draco was dead. What would her reaction have been then? I think she would have been too angry and distraught to be rational, and perhaps would have blamed Harry for Draco's death. I think she would have told Voldie that Harry was alive in that case. She could not, however, have fought on the side of the DEs unless she snatched up the wand of a fallen witch or wizard since she had given hers to Draco. I'm not denying that it was brave of Narcissa to lie to LV (though she avoids his eyes to prevent detection) or that her love of her son outweighs any remaining loyalty to LV (who had treated her family very badly). But I think that self-interest and a desire for vengeance would have triumphed in the end had Harry told her that Draco was dead. Everything, for her, depended on his answer, IMO. I think that Narcissa and Bellatrix are a contrasting pair. Both start out caring about their families (except the rejected Andromeda) to some degree (Bellatrix is surprisingly fond of "Cissy" in "Spinner's End") and loyal to the Dark Lord. The difference is that, for Bellatrix, loyalty and devotion to Voldemort (and "glory" in his service) are more important than anything else, including life; for Narcissa, love of her family, and especially her son, trumps everything, however much she may support the cause of pure-blood supremacy, especially after LV disgraces her husband and endangers her son. I don't consider Narcissa to be a "good Slytherin" (unlike Andromeda, who risked and lost a great deal supporting the anti-Voldemort side), but she's better than the irredeemably evil Bellatrix. I imagine the elder Malfoys slipping back into something like the life they led before Voldemort's second rise to power, but without their former influence. Maybe Narcissa inherited Bellatirx's wealth (assuming that Rodolphus and Rabastan were dead). What they did all day, sitting around like a pair of dragons on their pile of gold, we're left to imagine. It must have been a boring and unproductive life. Carol, still wondering how the Malfoys got by without a House-elf after Dobby was freed From french_traceym at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 16:45:10 2007 From: french_traceym at hotmail.com (french_traceym) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:45:10 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178059 > >> Potioncat: > > > As the reader caught up in the events I am furious that neither > > Harry > > > nor Hermione tried to help Snape--even if it wouldn't have worked. > Tacey: My first post and i'll probably ruffle some feathers but this is just my thoughts on this topic. Harry and Hermione only knew Snape to be allied with Voldemort. Harry saw Snape kill Dumbledore, knew Snape betrayed his parents to Voldemort, and since day one at Hogwarts treated Harry and non slytherin students with uttmost unfairness. I'm amazed Harry didn't stand over Snape and tell him " I'm glad you're dying,it's about time." Most people would have. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 17:24:07 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:24:07 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178060 I don't see that Regulus's attempt to destroy Voldemort's horcrux was opposite to the pureblood idealogy of the Death Eaters. I think, like Mike, that we get a big clue with the idea of the Blacks being "like Royalty." (Isn't it funny how that idea is repeated in the next book with the "Half-Blood Prince"?) We keep talking about purebloodism in relation to racism, which is a very broad application of "blood" as a determinating factor. Bloodline is also important (supremely important) in Aristocracy and Royalty. Now, the wizards, as Lupin says, don't have royalty, but they do seem to have an Aristocracy. Since we know so little about Regulus, it's easy to speculate and make him into whatever you like. I see him as someone who picks up both the virtues and the vices of someone born to power. Being born into his position, he naturally follows the philosophy that keep him there. He doesn't question why he should be on top, he just assumes that role. And, except for that pesky brother, everything around him confirms his view. His elf worships him, his parents spell out his future as first second son, and then, when Sirius leaves, as heir to their family. He is sorted into the House of Movers and Shakers. (If you've ever seen the incredible -Up series, he's like the trio of upper-class boys who can recite the course of their lives at seven years: Prep-school, Prep-school, Oxbridge, Career in the law/politics...) The flip side of power is responsibility. Why does he turn on Voldemort? Because Voldemort showed his colors to Regulus by threatening Regulus's subject. Now, if Regulus considered himself Voldemort's slave (as the other Death Eaters must eventually if they are to survive), then he'd accept the sacrifice of Kreacher. But he's not a slave. He's following Voldemort because he thinks Voldemort is a true king. When he sees that Voldemort isn't a true leader (a true leader would never toss aside a subject so callously and wastefully), Regulus turns against him and uses what he has (his wits and the knowledge Kreacher brought him) to bring down the false king. I wish that Regulus had been a bit smarter about it (because I wish he had survived). But, in a way, I think his lonely death would be in character for a person invested in his own personal power. He had done the wrong thing by entrusting Voldemort with his servant, and he only would pay the price for that mistake. Montavilla47 From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 17:25:44 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:25:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178061 Carol responds: I agree that the Malfoys had nothing to gain from Voldemort's return, though I wouldn't put it past Lucius to try to regain his old position as LV's right-hand man with Snape dead if LV had won. (He could have acquired a new wand somehow.) And I don't think that Narcissa's sentiments would have changed toward Voldie if he hadn't abused and disgraced her family, and, especially, endangered her son. I don't think that she was "dissatisfied with DEhood" per se (JKR says that she didn't have the Mark) and she seems loyal enough in HBP and DH in everything that doesn't relate to Draco. I also don't deny that Harry's perception of her motives could be faulty (though I think he sees more clearly after King's Cross than ever before, in particular a recognition of the humanity of the Slytherins). Tiffany: I'm with Carol; I wouldn't put anything past Lucius, esp. with LV needing a "right-hand man" to do his dirty work. I don't think LV & Narcissa's ideas on each other would've changed much if not for the abuse & disgrace he caused her family. I don't think that she was discontent with the DE per se, just wishing that LV wasn't in it or was forced out by someone else. I loved how much after the King's Cross that Harry realized the humanity of the Slytherin house. I think that Harry's basic ideas about Slytherin were very checkered by his own experiences with members of the house & he thought that all Slytherins were like that also. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 18:09:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:09:17 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178062 Mike: > > My thinking is that, though Regulus was a follower of Voldemort, it was him parroting his parents views that led him to become a DE. Further, I perceive that Regulus was enamored with the idea of royalty, of being in charge more than belief in the pureblood dogma. I see that as a much more likely idea for a 16-year-old to latch onto, than the more nebulous pureblood fanaticism that has no obvious benefits to one of his age. > > > > Does that make him a better person, if my postulation is correct? In my mind, yes. Beleiving your parents, parroting their ideals is not admirable in and of itself. But thinking yourself special is much less distasteful than espousing bigoted pulchitrude. > > Magpie: > So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco to? Because they seem exactly the same to me. Being attracted to the DEs is being attracted to evil even if the primary attraction isn't wiping out Muggle-borns--although though Pureblood superiority seems to be exactly the beliefs that Draco and Regulus got from their parents that sent them to the DEs to be "right little heroes." That's how they're special. Espousing bigoted pulchitrude is a way of thinking youself special. > > I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still agree with Adam's point as I understand it. I still consider him a DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened-- whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge or everyone else and getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those beliefs along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't. Carol responds: Both Draco and Regulus seem to have been raised with a belief in their superiority (we can see vestiges of that "practically royal" arrogance even in Regulus's Gryffindor brother), but their motives seem different to me, both in joining the DEs and becoming disillusioned with them. Regulus has been collecting press clippings of Voldemort, worshipping him from afar as if he were a rock star, before actually joining up, not realizing, according to Sirius, how far Voldie and the DEs were prepared to go in enacting their agenda. As Mike points out, he was sixteen and still in school. Probably he has not been involved in their activities. When he offers his family's own House-Elf to Voldemort's cause, it's obvious that he doesn't know that the House-Elf will be abused. He's still full of the idealistic glow of his glorious cause until Kreacher's suffering brings the truth home to him and he finds a way to simultaneously avenge Kreacher and harm the Dark Lord that involves his own excruciatingly painful death and a self-sacrifice obviously paralleling Lily's and Harry's. At the same time, he protects his family by not allowing Kreacher to tell them what happened, at the same time ordering him to destroy the locket that he (somehow) knows to be a Horcrux. Love and courage. A name signifying the brightest star in the constellation Leo. Like Snape, he was perhaps sorted too early. At any rate, we are surely supposed to admire him and grieve for him. Both his idealism when he offers Kreacher's services and his disillusionment and determination to destroy the evil he now perceives in Voldemort suggest to me that he was never deeply steeped in evil, only deluded, and when the truth was revealed, he deliberately chose a terrible and inescapable death to help destroy that evil. Draco is rather different. He has a similar upbringing and some of the Black arrogance (at one point we see him "holding court" at the Slytherin table). He also takes for granted his father's influence, even after Lucius is removed from the Board of Governors in CoS. Unlike Regulus, whose father was not a DE, he has a fairly clear idea of what the DEs are all about, smugly watching the Muggle-baiting at the QWC, in which his father and perhaps his mother take part, and predicting, after the murder of Cedric Diggory, that "Mudbloods" and blood traitors will be next. He sees a war coming and intends to be on the winning side, to benefit as a pure-blood with strong family connections to the Dark Lord (and perhaps follow in his father's footsteps as a DE when the time comes though he never expresses an inclination to do so). At the end of OoP, everything changes. His father is in prison and disgraced in the eyes of both the WW and the DEs. He expresses a desire for vengeance against Harry, whom he blames for his father's arrest. Whether he's approached by LV (or Aunt Bellatrix) or whether it's his own idea to join up, he's eager to serve the Dark Lord, to earn "glory" by somehow killing the old Muggle lover, Dumbledore (and certain that his Vanishing Cabinet idea will work). We know that he uses the Imperius Curse on Rosmerta, attempts to smuggle in a cursed necklace, successfully smuggles in poisoned mead, which strikes the wrong target, and succeeds in getting DEs into Hogwarts. But we also see that, like Regulus, he becomes disillusioned. Unlike Regulus, who sacrifices himself on principle, Draco simply grows fearful of what will happen to himself and his family if he fails to kill DD, trying desperate measures that endanger his classmates and then, deterred from those by Snape, focuses again on the cabinet, reduced to tears and hysteria as the threats become harsher and the fear of failure more pressing. It isn't the Dark Lord's cruelty to his followers or a change in principle that motivates him, AFAICT. It's simple fear. He still fights and attempts to Crucio Harry, whom he still perceives (rightly) as an enemy. But when Harry uses Sectumsempra on him and then kneels there helplessly, not glorying in what he's done but horrified, perhaps Draco realizes that Harry doesn't want him dead. Almost certainly, he gets a taste of death, which could not have been real to him before. So he can celebrate fixing the Cabinet and bring the DEs in, thinking that he can now save himself and his family and prevent Snape from "stealing [his] glory," but he can only get as far as disarming DD, not actually killing a helpless and obviously ill old man. He realizes that he is not a killer but he lowers his wand only a fraction of an inch until he is shoved aside by Snape and saved from the consequences of his indecision by Snape and DD together. Unlike Regulus, he does not have a moment of rejection of LV and his cause, nor does he try to do anything about it for fear of consequences to himself and his family. (Of course, unlike Regulus, he's heard nothing of the existence of valuable relics that might be Horcruxes and has no means of carrying out revenge even if he wanted to.) He also learns that he doesn't like torture, but he lacks the strength of will to refuse to do LV's bidding. He does at least refuse to definitively identify Ron and Hermione, but only in the RoR do we see him using Snapelike arguments to deter Crabbe and Goyle from attacking Harry and actually grabbing Crabbe's arm to prevent him from casting destructive spells. And he makes sure that the unconscious Goyle (who has done no more than point his wand at Harry) is saved from the Fiendfyre. (He even mourns the unworthy Crabbe, who had been his friend.) But when we see him wandless, at the mercy of a DE, we see him arguing that he's on the DE's side, placing self-preservation above principle. Draco is not Regulus or even very much like him despite the similarity in their situations. Regulus is a hero whose name becomes a rallying cry for House-Elves. Draco is just a chastened, humbled, disillusioned young man, stripped of his delusions of "glory" in the service of the seemingly all-powerful Dark Lord who was, after all, mortal. He has seen evil and been forced to perform it, and he has, I think, learned his lesson. He will not become another Lucius, just an ordinary, balding, middle-aged father of a son who, we can hope, has not been taught that he is "almost royalty." Draco lacked the strength to rescue himself, but he knows now which is the right side. It's unlikely, IMO, that he will fall into evil again or allow his son to do so. And that's a big improvement over the Draco who hoped that Hermione would be killed by Slytherin's monster and who later thought he could earn "glory" by murdering Dumbledore. I personally don't care whether Regulus still believed that pure-bloods were superior to Muggle-borns when he died. No doubt he did because he had been raised to believe it. But he wasn't willing to condone cruelty to a House-Elf, so it stands to reason that he would not have condoned cruelty to Muggles or Muggle-borns, either (even though, as with Snape, it took the mistreatment of someone he personally cared about to open his eyes). The point is, he acted on principle. He not only put himself at terrible risk, he knew that he was going to die horribly and chose to do so to hurt the leader he recognized as evil in the worst possible way. There's a difference between believing yourself and your blood status (not race--they're all white) superior and killing or torturing those that you consider inferior. We have no evidence to indicate that Regulus, whose room reflects his schoolboy status and his interest in Quidditch, ever engaged in Muggle torture or any other horrible crime. (LV had no reason to punish his family by making him a murder instrument, for example.) His reaction to Kreacher's treatment by Voldemort reflects a deep-seated humanity that we don't see in Draco at the same age. It's tragic that he didn't live to fight Voldemort in some other way (and redeem himself in the eyes of his Gryffindor brother). Carol, wondering whether Draco knows that he owes Harry a life-debt and whether that knowledge has any bearing on the curt nod on Platform 9 3/4 From wynnleaf at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:00:21 2007 From: wynnleaf at yahoo.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:00:21 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178063 -- > >> Potioncat: > > > > As the reader caught up in the events I am furious that neither > > > Harry > > > > nor Hermione tried to help Snape--even if it wouldn't have > worked. > > > > Tacey: My first post and i'll probably ruffle some feathers but this > is just my thoughts on this topic. > > Harry and Hermione only knew Snape to be allied with Voldemort. Harry > saw Snape kill Dumbledore, knew Snape betrayed his parents to > Voldemort, and since day one at Hogwarts treated Harry and non > slytherin students with uttmost unfairness. > > I'm amazed Harry didn't stand over Snape and tell him " I'm glad > you're dying,it's about time." Most people would have. > wynnleaf I think Pippin's point that Harry didn't even *consider* whether or not to attempt to save Snape is important. This is Harry, who's supposed to have a "saving people thing." Yet it apparently never crossed Harry's mind to even wonder whether he should stop Voldemort from killing Snape, or later to even consider whether it would be possible to keep him alive. I agree that Harry was in a difficult spot regarding Snape and Voldemort. At the time he was listening to the conversation, as far as he knew *both* Voldemort and Snape might have wished him dead, so saving Snape could simply have opened up both Harry and Hermione to attack. On the other hand, Harry never considers this one way or another. Yes, Harry had seen Snape kill Dumbledore and Snape had been mean to him for years. But Harry also knew that Snape had saved his life and the lives of others that he cared about, so it's not like Harry didn't realize that Snape had helped him as well as tormented him in the past. Harry would have known that Snape had certainly done more for Harry than Draco, and Harry was willing to help Draco. I don't think JKR means us to think that there was any true possibility of saving Snape, whether because of the venom or the blood pouring out. But I do think it's noteworthy that no one *tries* to do anything, nor even considers it for a second, even to discard the notion. It's that fact -- that saving Snape is so beneath Harry's consideration that it never even comes to mind -- that is tragic. wynnleaf From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:14:35 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:14:35 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abbey" wrote: > According to a MuggleNet article today, Rowling says, > regarding "Deathly Hallows," that "Some people will loathe it, they > will absolutely loathe it." Could this mean that Harry really is a > Christ character? Some people would certainly loathe that - some have > already said so in response to my article. > > Abbey > lizzyben: Just wanted to resurrect this thread to congratulate Abbey on predicting the essential themes of Deathly Hallows. Yesterday, JKR revealed in an interview that the series does have an explicitly Christian theme. "'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books' Christian Imagery 'They almost epitomize the whole series,' she says of the scripture Harry reads in Godric's Hollow. "... Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins ? not disciples ? but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking. Author J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books have always, in fact, dealt explicitly with religious themes and questions, but until "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," they had never quoted any specific religion. That was the plan from the start, Rowling told reporters during a press conference at the beginning of her Open Book Tour on Monday. It wasn't because she was afraid of inserting religion into a children's story. Rather, she was afraid that introducing religion (specifically Christianity) would give too much away to fans who might then see the parallels. "To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml So, looks like Deathly Hallows, and indeed the entire series, has an explicity Christian message. That lends some support to the Calvinist interpretation... But I was wondering what people thought about JKR's statement that she tried to hide the religious themes until the last novel. Was that fair to readers? Did she mislead about the large role religion would end up playing in the series? Or was it a good idea for her to keep the religious themes hidden in order to avoid spoiling the ending? Also, it puts new light on JKR's statements about how the last novel will reveal the secret at the heart of the series - people thought the secret involved some intricate puzzle ending, when in fact it seems like the secret was the revelation of the Christian theme of the series. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 18 19:27:13 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:27:13 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178065 > lizzyben: Was that fair to readers? Did she mislead > about the large role religion would end up playing in the series? Or > was it a good idea for her to keep the religious themes hidden in > order to avoid spoiling the ending? Also, it puts new light on JKR's > statements about how the last novel will reveal the secret at the > heart of the series - people thought the secret involved some > intricate puzzle ending, when in fact it seems like the secret was > the revelation of the Christian theme of the series. Magpie: My impression of the article when I read it earlier was that by "Christian" she seems to mean life after death, which is a bit more universal. If you're not linking everylasting afterlife to God and Jesus, I don't see how it's all that explicitly Christian. Her beliefs seem to be more about a struggle with believing in life after death with the book obviously showing that when you die you go on living, so you can appear to Harry in that one scene, for instance. I recognize some Christian ideas in the glimpses we get of the afterlife (why does Voldemort wind up a squawling, tormented baby because he didn't repent? I'm not sure within the reality of the series, but he does). I did laugh when I read the article, though, because wow, was I off the mark in everything I thought was connected to Christianity (even if that stuff, too, was pretty universal)! I'm surprised I even got the names right! I seem to not share any of her specific anxieties about death at all, and while she seems to have been writing to deal with exactly that to me the book doesn't say anything much about death at all, either in terms of being the one who dies or the one who lives on. It was more like when someone died it was a really big deal, Death is with them like a presence, seemed like the world would end...and then things move on. And sometimes the person popped up again later in some form to give advice and support and got somebody named after them. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:37:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:37:09 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178066 > wynnleaf > > I think Pippin's point that Harry didn't even *consider* whether or > not to attempt to save Snape is important. This is Harry, who's > supposed to have a "saving people thing." Yet it apparently never > crossed Harry's mind to even wonder whether he should stop Voldemort > from killing Snape, or later to even consider whether it would be > possible to keep him alive. Alla: As I said upthread, even I would have been Okay with Harry attempting to save Snape, just to showcast his saving people thing. But, on the other hand, I think that him NOT to do it is so much more realistic. As Julie? said, would anybody expect him to try to save Bella for example? Wasn't Snape in the same position? Harry knows **nothing** yet of DD plan to sacrifice him, no of the plan, so why would Harry consider saving someone who murdered Dumbledore even if he forgets of six years of torment? Why would Harry consider saving somebody who as far as he is concerned at the end of book 6 he wants to do the opposite? wynleaf: > I agree that Harry was in a difficult spot regarding Snape and > Voldemort. At the time he was listening to the conversation, as far > as he knew *both* Voldemort and Snape might have wished him dead, so > saving Snape could simply have opened up both Harry and Hermione to > attack. > > On the other hand, Harry never considers this one way or another. > Yes, Harry had seen Snape kill Dumbledore and Snape had been mean to > him for years. But Harry also knew that Snape had saved his life > and the lives of others that he cared about, so it's not like Harry > didn't realize that Snape had helped him as well as tormented him in > the past. Harry would have known that Snape had certainly done more > for Harry than Draco, and Harry was willing to help Draco. Alla: Isn't Snape going to DE crosses out everything that Harry knows about him saving lives? I mean, are you saying that Harry could seriously consider the possibility that Snape is NOT a DE at this point? I do not see any difference between Saving Snape and saving Bella at all. IMO of course. Yes, Harry was willing to help Draco, but I think the difference is that Draco himself did not do so much damage to Harry's life alltogether as Snape did. IMO of course. wynnleaf: > I don't think JKR means us to think that there was any true > possibility of saving Snape, whether because of the venom or the > blood pouring out. But I do think it's noteworthy that no one > *tries* to do anything, nor even considers it for a second, even to > discard the notion. It's that fact -- that saving Snape is so > beneath Harry's consideration that it never even comes to mind -- > that is tragic. Alla: I think it is realistic, IMO. I never expected Harry to do something for the person who hurt him so many times. But I also never expected Harry to respect Snape the teacher after what Snape the teacher did on his first lesson. So, nothing new for me really. Not saying that you are arguing this, but this whole argument certainly reminds me of how Harry should take responsibility for Snape's hatred of him. Not in my mind. JMO, Alla, who was laughing when she read that JKR wants to slap Snape hard. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:40:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:40:56 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178067 > Magpie: > So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't > being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the > most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco too? > Because they seem exactly the same to me. Being attracted to the > DEs is being attracted to evil even if the primary attraction isn't > wiping out Muggle-borns--although through Pureblood superiority > seems to be exactly the beliefs that Draco and Regulus got from > their parents that sent them to the DEs to be "right little > heroes." That's how they're special. Espousing bigoted pulchitrude > is a way of thinking youself special. Mike: The problem with equating Regulus with Draco, or to some degree Snape, is that we have nothing on stage of Reggie's to draw from. All we have is Sirius' bitter remarks about Regulus being "soft" enough to believe his parents. But with those same remarks, but seperate, he brings in the whole royalty motif, complete with the 700-year Tapestry of Lineage. Based on Ma Black's portrait, I don't doubt that purebloodism was taught in the Black household. But when you add in the Tapestry and the royalist posturing, I see their purebloodism taking a different form than the brand Voldemort was pushing. And, in the end, the Blacks distanced themselves from LV's position, after Voldemort "showed his true colors". Therefore, my impression was that Reg went along with his parents by parroting their pureblood line because he thought himself not just an elite pureblood, but styled himself as the ruling class among the elite class. Like many kings and queens through the ages, Reggie would spout the party line expected of him, whether he believed it or not. (BTW, minus the royalty part, I think this applies to Severus also.) So he joined up with the DEs and lived the lie of purebloodism, making his parents proud (if Sirius is to be believed). That certainly doesn't make him good. But we were speaking about motivations here, and I see Reggie's motivation in a different light than those of Bellatrix or Lucius or even Severus. Regulus wanted to be the king that his parents made him believe was his rightful calling in the WW. In the end, it's obvious to me that he didn't really believe the Voldemort version of the pureblood party line. > Magpie: > I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the > greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still > agree with Adam's point as I understand it. I still consider him a > DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened-- > whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other > beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil > for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying > at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help > the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge of everyone else and > getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those > beliefs along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't. Mike: Or, in my postulation, Regulus never really held to those same pureblood beliefs that Voldemort was espousing. I'm not trying to exonerate him from joining the DEs. Nor do I think holding purebloods up as elites, in any form, makes him something other than bigoted. But, to me, his brand of purebloodism is less offensive than Voldemort's. And by heading off to the cave to die, to thwart Voldemort, he seems to give up on his previous belief that he was some kind of royalty, destined to rule the WW. My conjecture for sure, but I see all the elements needed to make this leap. > Prep0strus: > I think I've pretty much reached an impasse on this discussion, but > Magpie has summed up my opinion pretty nicely. > > Everyone who commented that I was looking for the worst possible > explanations of Regulus' behavior was absolutely right - not > because I necessarily believe it to be so, but because I was > throwing ideas out there that could exist. Mike: I do think I understood that. The reason I debated your explanations was to show that they seemed implausible at best. The NEW dark lord possibilty was as close to an impossibilty as you could get, imo. By including the extreme and/or implausible possibilities for Regulus, you make your more reasonable and entirely plausible explanations look more palatable. A very effective method of debate. > Prep0strus: > My personal belief, based on the story? Regulus died a racist. I > think he always was one, and died one. I think he always cared for > Kreacher, but believed Voldemort cares for him, and shared his > beliefs. When Voldemort [left] Kreacher [to] die, Regulus realized > that Voldemort did not care about anything but himself. He > discovered he was into some VERY dangerous magic and was perhaps > becoming something less than human - something dangerous, scary, > and not supported by Regulus' ideology. Mike: I agree in part with this position. I agree that somehow Regulus came to understand what Voldemort was about and what he was prepared to do. I also agree that Regulus thought more of Kreacher than as just a slave, a non-entity. Which, in part, seperates him from the prevailing opinion in his part of the WW. That also makes it incongruous for him to hold himself up as the type of pureblood elitist that even his parents believe, let alone Voldemort, and still adhere to his regard for his House Elf, imo. > Prep0strus: > I don't think Regulus was ever quite prepared for the group he had > joined - he was a hate-filled little brat, but not necessarily a > murderer. I think, when he died, he realized it was a mistake, and > he was, indeed, trying to stop Voldemort, and he was also laying > his life on the line for Kreacher. Mike: I also agree that Regulus became, even more quickly than Snape, disillusioned with being a DE. Though we agree that Regulus was most likely inundated with his parents' elitism, we have zero knowledge of how much Regulus bought into it. You bet, you are entitled to your opinion. I do agree, we are at an impasse on the Regulus question. > Prep0strus: > Someone said I didn't believe there was enough information, so the > musings were strange. That's true. Mike: That was me, and I actually called them "curious". It was your extreme postulations for which I used that phrase. Because I agree, your above stated belief are both entirely plausible and not contradicted by canon. I just think I have a teeny bit more canon to base my belief on. And canon in support is better than lack of canon in opposition to, in my way of thinking. > Prep0strus: > And I still believe motivations and beliefs are very important in > regards to action. I think in literature we can know them, and they > are more interesting and give more information about a character > than the action itself. > > But even if someone has no choice but to become a bigoted murdering > monster, that doesn't change what they are... and it doesn't change > their beliefs or motivations, just the reasons for them. Mike: I was with you on the motivations and beliefs. More interesting to explore and knowable in Literature (though not in Regulus' case, imo). But you lost me with your "what they are" statement. Well, not lost, more like that statement seems contradictory. It sounds like the stance Eggplant takes that their actions are all that really counts. Because their actions, and especially Reg's actions, are how we tell what they are in the vast majority of characters, is it not? Mike, still liking Sirius best, but thinking Reg wasn't as bad as all that; hey, he was a seeker too ;) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 19:41:31 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:31 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > lizzyben: > But I was wondering what people thought > about JKR's statement that she tried to hide the religious themes > until the last novel. Was that fair to readers? Did she mislead > about the large role religion would end up playing in the series? Or > was it a good idea for her to keep the religious themes hidden in > order to avoid spoiling the ending? Also, it puts new light on JKR's > statements about how the last novel will reveal the secret at the > heart of the series - people thought the secret involved some > intricate puzzle ending, when in fact it seems like the secret was > the revelation of the Christian theme of the series. Montavilla47: I don't think she did a very good job of hiding the religious themes. It seems to me that they stood out a mile, and, John Granger was always there to point them out in case we missed them. I think from Book 5 on, people had pretty much guessed that Harry would be called on to make some kind of sacrifice in order to defeat Voldemort. Since his power was love, and the initial sacrifice that defeated Voldemort was driven by love. Also, it was very odd to me that the wizards had no religion. I thought it might be because religion is such a taboo subject in popular culture. But it always stuck me as very strange for a boarding school to have no chapel--it's such a staple of the English boarding school depiction. And Dumbledore was always such a god-like figure. Even flawed and human, he just seems to be the embodiment of the more complex and confusing old Testament God--which is still God. If it's veiled Christianity, then I think that's pretty cool. Because it's not telling us that God is good, and you'll be fine if you just accept Jesus as your personal savior. It's saying that God messes up, and giving in to his design is hard, and even if you give in to it, you can't be sure that it's going to work. Whether or not it does, might be up to some random person who helps you out for all the wrong reasons. Montavilla47 From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:23:21 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:23:21 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178069 Mike: The problem with equating Regulus with Draco, or to some degree Snape, is that we have nothing on stage of Reggie's to draw from. All we have is Sirius' bitter remarks about Regulus being "soft" enough to believe his parents. But with those same remarks, but seperate, he brings in the whole royalty motif, complete with the 700-year Tapestry of Lineage. Based on Ma Black's portrait, I don't doubt that purebloodism was taught in the Black household. But when you add in the Tapestry and the royalist posturing, I see their purebloodism taking a different form than the brand Voldemort was pushing. And, in the end, the Blacks distanced themselves from LV's position, after Voldemort "showed his true colors". Tiffany: I see the type of purebloodism to be more elitism than the type of purebloodism that LV was promoting. Don't forget also that with someone with an ego like LV's, showing your true colors is only a matter of time. I didn't care for the Blacks at first, but after a while, I gradually warmed up to them. The Tapestry of Lineage was really cool when it was a new idea, but because I value diginty a whole lot, the whole royal motif lineage was more than enough for me. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 18 20:34:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:34:37 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178070 > > Alla: > > Wasn't Snape in the same position? Harry knows **nothing** yet of DD > plan to sacrifice him, no of the plan, so why would Harry consider > saving someone who murdered Dumbledore even if he forgets of six > years of torment? Why would Harry consider saving somebody who as far > as he is concerned at the end of book 6 he wants to do the opposite? Pippin: Shacklebolt says "Every life is worth the same and every life is worth saving." (quoting from memory) He doesn't carve out an exception for suspected murderers who gave you a hard time in school. Which is a good thing, IMO, because otherwise one would have to approve of Snape wanting to turn Sirius over to the dementors. I agree it's very realistic that Harry doesn't even think of trying to stop Voldemort from killing Snape. But that doesn't make it *right.* > Alla: > > Isn't Snape going to DE crosses out everything that Harry knows about > him saving lives? I mean, are you saying that Harry could seriously > consider the possibility that Snape is NOT a DE at this point? Pippin: What about Sirius? Wouldn't the betrayal of the Potters and the murder of thirteen people have crossed out everything that Dumbledore knew about him saving lives? And yet, IIRC, some listees have been adamant that Dumbledore failed Sirius rather badly. Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 20:49:21 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:49:21 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178071 > Magpie: > My impression of the article when I read it earlier was that > by "Christian" she seems to mean life after death, which is a bit more > universal. If you're not linking everylasting afterlife to God and > Jesus, I don't see how it's all that explicitly Christian. Her beliefs > seem to be more about a struggle with believing in life after death > with the book obviously showing that when you die you go on living, so > you can appear to Harry in that one scene, for instance. lizzyben: Well, it seems like she views that as Christian. It seems like her views on religion have a lot to do with the afterlife, etc. and not so much on the ethical or moral aspects. Just IMO. But it's more than just Death - JKR is saying that Christianity played a large role in the creation of the potterverse & the planned end of the series. So this explains lots of other things - for example, Harry as "the Chosen One", the symbols of Slytherin, "Lily" as a name for the Virgin Mary, the Potters as the Holy Family, seeing the Potters' statue & tombstone on Christmas, etc. etc. There's a ton of religious imagery in DH that has nothing to do with death. Magpie: I recognize > some Christian ideas in the glimpses we get of the afterlife (why does > Voldemort wind up a squawling, tormented baby because he didn't > repent? I'm not sure within the reality of the series, but he does). > > I did laugh when I read the article, though, because wow, was I off > the mark in everything I thought was connected to Christianity (even > if that stuff, too, was pretty universal)! I'm surprised I even got > the names right! I seem to not share any of her specific anxieties > about death at all, and while she seems to have been writing to deal > with exactly that to me the book doesn't say anything much about death > at all, either in terms of being the one who dies or the one who lives > on. lizzyben: Well, totally agree here. I just don't understand why she wrote a seven-book series about death, without having an ultimate meaningful message on the topic. And I also don't share her sense of daily struggle or fears about dying. Guess that makes me a Master of Death. *shrug* Don't most people accept that they have to die? How is that a huge message? Other people have mentioned the lack of realistic mourning or grieving for the dead - and why would you grieve, look how happy & smiling they are! It seems almost... naive. Everyone who dies is just like they were alive, they're in portraits & ghosts & Resurrection Stones, and death doesn't hurt a bit. Harry, Ron & Hermione don't have to die, and the Mauraders come back to life. So at the same time that the book is talking about how great accepting death is, the main character doesn't have to accept death at all. Harry gets to escape death through his resurrection, see the dead again through the Stone, and keeps the Cloak that allows its owner to hide from death. In the end, the series seems to be less about accepting & dealing with death, and more about escaping, avoiding, ignoring or overcoming death. Which is what Voldemort was all about, right? This quote was interesting: "On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes ? that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books." It sure is! lizzyben From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 21:00:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:00:35 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178073 Alla wrote: > > As I said upthread, even I would have been Okay with Harry attempting to save Snape, just to showcast his saving people thing. > > But, on the other hand, I think that him NOT to do it is so much more realistic. > > As Julie? said, would anybody expect him to try to save Bella for > example? > > Wasn't Snape in the same position? Harry knows **nothing** yet of DD plan to sacrifice him, no of the plan, so why would Harry consider saving someone who murdered Dumbledore even if he forgets of six years of torment? Why would Harry consider saving somebody who as far as he is concerned at the end of book 6 he wants to do the opposite? Carol responds: I understand your position and I agree that Harry's reaction is realistic: Snape is now "the man he hated as much as he hated Voldemort" (quoted from memory and probably mangled). But Bellatrix and Snape are not really comparable. Dumbledore trusted snape; Snape was a member of the Order of the Phoenix; and Snape has never physically harmed Harry (other than throwing him *away* from him after the Pensieve incident. He has only taunted him about his similarity to his arrogant father and his {Harry's} own mediocrity (along with some pont dociking and favoritism of the Slytherins). Harry knows that Bellatrix was the ringleader of the DEs who tortured the Longbottoms into insanity and has personally seen her Crucio Neville and murder Sirius. He has seen her (in a Pensieve memory) claim to be LV's most faithful follower. She has personally taunted him and tried to get the Prophecy orb from him. He knows nothing good of her, and his view of her is largely accurate. Snape is another matter. True, he revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort, but DD has told Harry that Snape felt great remorse for that action. And, true, he killed DD before Harry's eyes, which Harry regards as a treacherous act of murder. But Harry also knows, on a subconscious level that he perhaps represses because it conflicts with the view he wants to have of Snape, that Snape saved his life during his first year and helped to thwart Quirrell, that Snape conjured those stretchers in PoA, that Snape (according to DD) spied for the good side at great personal risk, that he did not go to the graveyard with the other DEs but did something dangerous on DD's orders afterwards, that he helped DD deal with Barty Crouch Jr., that Snape provided Umbridge with fake Veritaserum, that Snape sent the DEs to the DoM, that he's finding out for DD "what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters." Harry knows that Snape treated DD's hand when he suffered a deadly injury from the ring, that he saved Katie Bell's life. He *witnessed* Snape saving Draco's life. And perhaps he knows subconsciously that Snape saved Harry himself from the Crucio at the end of HBP rather than casting it, as Harry assumed. Snape, unlike Bellatrix, is a puzzle, and Harry has wondered about him and questioned his loyalty to DD ever since he's revealed *not* to be the villain in SS/PS. And Harry has even had moments, however fleeting, of empathy for Snape based on his memories, especially SWM, in OoP. So while Harry would probably have felt overjoyed if Voldie had turned on Bella and killed her, with Snape, he feels only shock and horror and confusion, partly because of the way Snape died and the reason for it, but also, possibly, because of those memories of Snape that don't fit with the picture of him as a murdering traitor. And there are those repeated pleas, so unlike Snape as Harry knows him, to "let me go to the boy." Why, Harry must wonder (without being aware that he wonders it) does Snape want to see him so badly? Why not just accept LV's assertion that the boy will come to him? At any rate, Harry's shock does not prevent him from collecting the memories, once Hermione has provided a means to do so, nor does it prevent him from honoring the dying man's last request, looking into his eyes--a request that Bellatrix certainly would never have made. With regard to saving Snape, Harry is reduced to the same helplessness he felt seeing Draco lying in a pool of his own blood (where he would have died had it not been for Snape). But Harry at least realized that he didn't want Draco to die (especially not by Harry's own hand). With Snape, he doesn't know what to feel. At least he's not gloating, celebrating the death of the sarcastic teacher turned, so it seems, loyal LV supporter. There's no feeling of satisfaction at achieving vengeance. And the shock enables him to view the memories and move from hating Snape to understanding and forgiving him. While I think it's tragic and ironic that neither Harry nor Hermione made any attempt to save Snape, clearly Snape himself didn't hold it against him. All that mattered to him was getting those memories, especially the one containing the message about the soul bit, to Harry and then earning the only reward he ever wanted, looking again into Lily's eyes. What's remarkable to me is not that Harry, who rather perversely has never attempted to learn healing magic after seeing it demonstrated by both Snape and DD, did not attempt to save Snape but that he attempted to do what Snape wanted him to do, making sure, though he did not know it at the time, that Snape did not die in vain. As for Hermione, at least she kept her head enough to conjure the vial. It was probably too much for her to remember the dittany, and, she, too, had never learned those healing spells (conveniently for JKR's plot if not exactly in character for Hermione). Carol, who finds this scene with Snape an important step toward abandoning all his resentment and desire for retribution in 9unconscious) preparation for his upcoming self-sacrifice From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 21:41:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:41:17 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178074 Pippin: > > Shacklebolt says "Every life is worth the same and every life is worth > saving." (quoting from memory) He doesn't carve out an exception > for suspected murderers who gave you a hard time in school. > Which is a good thing, IMO, because otherwise one would have to > approve of Snape wanting to turn Sirius over to the dementors. > > I agree it's very realistic that Harry doesn't even think of trying to > stop Voldemort from killing Snape. But that doesn't make it *right.* Alla: Well, I disagree. NOT with every life worth saving, but with that is somehow not right for someone who thinks that other person is DE and murderer to not save that person. Frankly, I would indeed only expect that from the Saint. But that is just me of course. Again, would you expect Harry to try and save Bella? I would find it not only wrong, but also quite idiotic, since her response can be to attack Harry again. As far as Harry knew, Snape could have turned around and kill him, no? And yeah, before you ask, I think Harry's try for some remorse to Voldemort was quite idiotic - in character, but idiotic IMO. Try for some remorse Riddle, and then what? We will forgive you and let you go free? I wonder. ETA: Ugh. That is what happens when one hits send too early. Snape wanting to throw Sirius to dementors? I do not see Harry feeding Snape to Nagini or exposing him to Voldemort, then I would see the comparison. I would **never** say for example that Snape had any sort of obligation to **save** Sirius from dementors in forest, if he truly thought that Sirius was a raving murderer. Inaction in this situation to me would have been fully understandable. It would have been nice if he did that, but why would he? Just as I think it would have been nice if Harry did that, but not find it wrong. It is the **action** of Snape is what I find disagreeable and yeah, I would not like if Harry actively sought Snape's death and then found out that he was innnocent too. Again, every life is worth saving, and I am truly happy for both characters and people in RL, who could find it in themselves to save the person who did them that much wrong. Without any irony I find them to be noble of the noblest. BUT the fact that I find such action commendable without any irony whatsoever, does not mean that I will **judge** those characters who would not save the one who wronged them that badly and who as far as they are aware is a traitor and murderer. And as I also said above, I think that but for the shock, Harry may have done that too. I truly think that he is into saving people. BUT even if he would not have done that, I do not begrudge him one bit. IMO of course. > > Alla: > > > > Isn't Snape going to DE crosses out everything that Harry knows about > > him saving lives? I mean, are you saying that Harry could seriously > > consider the possibility that Snape is NOT a DE at this point? > > > Pippin: > What about Sirius? Wouldn't the betrayal of the Potters and the > murder of thirteen people have crossed out everything that Dumbledore > knew about him saving lives? And yet, IIRC, some listees have been > adamant that Dumbledore failed Sirius rather badly. Alla: So do not want to start this debate again, I will just say briefly that YES if Dumbledore seen with his eyes - NOT heard from anybody else that Sirius killed thirteen people, I would not held it that much against him. Harry saw with his eyes Snape killing Dumbledore. In his mind Snape was like Bella, was he not? Nope, I think Harry behaved very realistically. My view of course. Oh and I also think that if Harry would not have been in shock, he may have done it contrary to what I just said. I speculate that it was sort of reliving Tower for him. Speculation of course. JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 22:02:26 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:02:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol, still wondering how the Malfoys got by without a House-elf > after Dobby was freed zanooda: Maybe they had more than one :-)! Remember how Draco Malfoy says in PoA that Lupin "dresses like our old house-elf"? Dobby was not their slave anymore at that time, and somehow he doesn't seem "old" to me. Winky, iirc, mentioned that her mother and grandmother served the Crouch family as well, so I think it's quite possible for two or even three house-elves to live in a house at the same time (unless you cut the older one's head when the younger one is ready to serve, like the Blacks did). >> Laura wrote: >> I have one question: why did Narcissa ask Harry if Draco >> was still alive? Yes, I know that Harry was in the castle >> a while ago, and she knows this, too, but she knows at >> least that Harry has been gone from the castle for the >> time it took for Harry to walk a long ways into the forest, >> and for Voldemort to "kill" him. Isn't the battle still going >> on? Couldn't something have happened to Draco in the >> interim? The battle stopped for one hour ("The Prince's Tale") by LV's orders to give Harry time to come to the Forest and surrender. Narcissa knows that Harry left the castle after the battle stopped, and, if he saw Draco alive at that time, it's logical for her to assume that he is still alive when she asks her question. zanooda From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 18 22:33:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:33:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178076 Snorky: > When Narcissa lied to Voldemort that Harry was dead, Harry reasoned > that she lied because she wouldn't be allowed into the Castle > quickly if she wasn't going in as part of a victory march. Perhaps > all the stress of dying and coming back muddled Harry's reasoning. > The death eaters would have had no trouble finishing Harry off there > and then if she had said he was alive. If wands didn't work, at least > one of them had a knife. Pippin: Narcissa couldn't have known whether it would be easy to finish Harry off, since she couldn't have any idea why he was still alive in the first place. She wasn't listening in on Dumbledore's explanation.:) OTOH, she could be certain that if Voldemort thought Harry was dead, he would return at once to Hogwarts to brag of his victory. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 18 22:54:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:54:31 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178077 - > Alla: > > Well, I disagree. NOT with every life worth saving, but with that is > somehow not right for someone who thinks that other person is DE and > murderer to not save that person. > > Frankly, I would indeed only expect that from the Saint. But that is > just me of course. > > Again, would you expect Harry to try and save Bella? Pippin: She was taken alive after the attack on the Longbottoms. So someone tried to save her, no doubt at great personal risk. Snape was, technically, an innocent man no matter what Harry saw him do. There is a moral obligation, I would say, to try to save innocent people, and to presume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I hope that Harry the Auror believes that and has learned from his experience that he is not the judge of guilt or innocence. I forgive him for not acting, because I think all the murders he had seen through Voldie-vision gave him a sort of learned helplessness. But I don't think there's nothing to forgive. Alla: > It would have been nice if he did that, but why would he? Just as I > think it would have been nice if Harry did that, but not find it > wrong. > Pippin: Snape did rescue Sirius from exposure to the dementors. He will have known he was not going to get any great reward for it -- what good is an Order of Merlin going to do him when he knows that eventually he will have to go back and spy on LV? I think he did it because he thought it was right, or at least, on reconsideration, that he was not the person to decide Sirius's fate. > Alla: > > So do not want to start this debate again, I will just say briefly > that YES if Dumbledore seen with his eyes - NOT heard from anybody > else that Sirius killed thirteen people, I would not held it that > much against him. Pippin: It is very possible that Dumbledore saw what happened through pensieve memories, but Peter was clever enough that no one would have understood what he did even if they were looking right at him. Pippin From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 23:46:00 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:46:00 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178078 Pippin: There is a moral obligation, I would say, to try to save innocent people, and to presume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I hope that Harry the Auror believes that and has learned from his experience that he is not the judge of guilt or innocence. Tiffany: Harry's learning at Hogwarts to not judge guilt or innocence & that all folks deserve a chance to explain themselves before they're judged for it. Harry has also been falsely proven to be a judge of good & evil & that there's more important things besides just your house when labelling someone. Pippin: I forgive him for not acting, because I think all the murders he had seen through Voldie-vision gave him a sort of learned helplessness. But I don't think there's nothing to forgive. Tiffany: There comes a point when being a victim or innocent bystander isn't gonna fly well with others. True, he saw a lot of murders done & has been traumatized by it, but playing the victim card isn't a very good way to live life. Victimization is kind of like crying wolf when you try to use it a lot, IMHO. I don't mind him claiming he was a victim before of some pretty heinous stuff because he was, esp. in his early life, but sooner or later it's all up to you to make your own breaks. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 00:03:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:03:36 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178079 > Pippin: > She was taken alive after the attack on the Longbottoms. So someone > tried to save her, no doubt at great personal risk. > > Snape was, technically, an innocent man no matter what Harry > saw him do. Alla: Eh, okay. In RL, sure. To me not in the book verse. Harry saw him commit murder. I guess Voldemort is then technically an innocent man too? I doubt JKR planned to put him in front of the jury, Voldemort I mean. Harry saw the murder. With explanation of that murder, we see that Snape is innocent, but without explanation? Not to me. Pippin: > There is a moral obligation, I would say, to try to save innocent people, > and to presume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I hope > that Harry the Auror believes that and has learned from his experience > that he is not the judge of guilt or innocence. Alla: Yes, try to save an **innocent people**. I think that to demand from Harry that he would consider Snape an innocent for one second after the Tower is to demand way too much from Harry, but JMO of course. I mean if all we saw between Snape and Harry was Snape tormenting Harry in school, then sure, I would still be not upset if Harry would not acted and happy that greasy git dead, but OMG after the Tower? To demand from Harry that he would save the murderer? I think Harry had enough to take care of. I see no reason why Harry should have thought of Snape at that time any difference than Voldemort, Bella, or other DE? I see no difference if I were to look from Harry POV. Pippin: > I forgive him for not acting, because I think all the murders > he had seen through Voldie-vision gave him a sort of learned > helplessness. But I don't think there's nothing to forgive. Alla: I guess time to agree to disagree then. There is absolutely nothing to forgive here for me. Harry was not making anybody to kill Snape, he was not even gleeing or anything like that, he was standing here in shock. What part in his indecision played his hatred of Snape and what part if any his shock I do not know. But even if Harry did not act **only** because he thought one DE was killing DE, I still think there is nothing to forgive whatsoever. JMO, Alla From sherriola at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 00:30:19 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:30:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4717faa2.11588c0a.26bc.39e4@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178080 Pippin: What about Sirius? Wouldn't the betrayal of the Potters and the murder of thirteen people have crossed out everything that Dumbledore knew about him saving lives? And yet, IIRC, some listees have been adamant that Dumbledore failed Sirius rather badly. Pippin Sherry: They are not the same things at all, in my opinion. Harry *saw* Snape kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore *assumed* that Sirius betrayed the Potters. He didn't even know for sure that Sirius was the secret keeper. He just *assumed* again. But overall, I think this doesn't matter, because now I'm *assuming* that JKR was too busy with the scene itself and didn't think to have Harry think one way or the other about saving Snape. I don't think she meant us to think, wow, Harry didn't even try to save Snape. I think she had other things to show in the scene. And of course, I know what happens when you "assume". Like Dumbledore, I've made some huge mistakes by doing that! Sherry From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Oct 19 02:05:05 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:05:05 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > Also, it was very odd to me that the wizards had no religion. > I thought it might be because religion is such a taboo > subject in popular culture. But it always stuck me as very > strange for a boarding school to have no chapel--it's > such a staple of the English boarding school depiction. And it's even stranger in the light of JKR's assertion that "Hogwarts is a multifaith school" [http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml]. *What*? There is more, much more to being a multi-faith school than having one student with an apparently Jewish name and two whose ancestors seem to hail from the Sub-Continent. I know imagination is to be prized in a writer of fiction, but really, now she's just making stuff up. No Passover, no Eid (scope for a feast there, I'd have imagined), no Diwali. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 02:52:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:52:05 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178082 > Alla: > Eh, okay. In RL, sure. To me not in the book verse. Harry saw him > commit murder. zgirnius: As we and Harry now know, he saw no such thing. He thought he saw Snape murder Dumbledore; he actually only saw Snape kill Dumbledore. This is why we have trials instead of deciding people are murderers and acting accordingly, is I think Pippin's point. > Alla: > I guess Voldemort is then technically an innocent man > too? I doubt JKR planned to put him in front of the jury, Voldemort > I mean. zgirnius: Actually, since Harry and we have been blessed (cursed is perhaps a better word) with direct perception of Voldemort's mind as he committed several murders, I would say perhaps not. However, Harry's actions towards him were consistent with such technical innocence. All Harry did was defend himself using a Disarming Charm when attacked by Voldemort. No one is suggesting he has an obligation to let Voldemort kill him. (A second time ). > Alla: > To demand from Harry that he would save the murderer? I think Harry > had enough to take care of. I see no reason why Harry should have > thought of Snape at that time any difference than Voldemort, Bella, > or other DE? I see no difference if I were to look from Harry POV. zgirnius: I would expect the idea of providing medical attention to any and all of the individuals named to cross Harry's mind, were he to have come upon them bleeding severely and helpless, as he did in fact encounter Snape. He has done as much in the past - how is Peter Pettigrew, about to be murdered by his vengeful friends, any different? Though as I reread the text, it is less clear to me that Harry never did think of it. As soon as Voldemort leaves, Harry enters the room. > DH, "The Elder Wand": > He did not know why he was doing it, why he was approaching the dying man: He did not know what he felt as he saw Snape's white face, and the fingers trying to staunch the bloody wound at his neck. zgirnius: It's a question of what we believe about the narration of the HP series, to drag another thread into this discussion. In whose opinion was Snape dying? If in Harry's, then the use of that word indicates he believed that Snape was about to die. In which case, his failure to consider medical intervention is natural because in his opinion, Snape was beyond help. Harry does all he can for the dying man - he goes to Snape, sees Snape is trying to speak and bends low to hear him, listens to his last words, takes the memories, and carries out Snape's dying request. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 02:55:46 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:55:46 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: <4717faa2.11588c0a.26bc.39e4@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178083 > Sherry: > But overall, I think this doesn't matter, because now I'm *assuming* that > JKR was too busy with the scene itself and didn't think to have Harry think > one way or the other about saving Snape. I don't think she meant us to > think, wow, Harry didn't even try to save Snape. I think she had other > things to show in the scene. > > And of course, I know what happens when you "assume". Like > Dumbledore, I've made some huge mistakes by doing that! > > Sherry > lizzyben: OK, in my opinion Harry didn't save Snape because JKR wanted Snape to die. And we weren't supposed to think about how it was tragic that he was murdered, we were supposed to think he got some karmic justice, well deserved. Just like Umbridge did, just like Marietta did. We were all supposed to think Snape was a baddie, and gloat at his death - only to later get the "big reveal" that he was on the good side. JKR wanted Snape to die horribly, and plotted his death from way back for the ultimate "irony"/poetic justice. And she did this in order to get revenge on an old chemistry teacher who gave her a bad grade. In her latest interview, JKR confirmed that Snape was based on John Nettleship, and that he deserved his fate. "Dwayne Lockett, of Alice Harte Elementary, asked what advice Rowling could give students who wanted to write, especially if their grades weren't the best. "If you'd seen my grades in chemistry..." Rowling said. "That's why Snape teaches Potions." Then, after the audience groaned, she said, "Don't say awwww! He deserved it! We can all think of teachers we'd like revenge on." http://blog.nola.com/living/2007/10/new_orleans_students_give_rowl.html So... Snape may have gotten over his vindictiveness, but it doesn't look like JKR did! She's still talking about getting back at an old teacher 25 years later. And then she combines this with statements about how Harry Potter has a Christian theme & my brain starts to hurt. If it's a Christian series, what happened to those messages about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" "Judge not, yest ye be judged", "love thy enemies", "turn the other cheek", etc? I don't understand how she can take such glee out of revenge, and also state that the books have a Christian message - it's like she lifted the good parts (eternal life, salvation) without the hard parts (forgiveness, nonviolence, etc.) lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 04:10:30 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:10:30 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178084 > lizzyben: > OK, in my opinion Harry didn't save Snape because JKR wanted Snape to > die. And we weren't supposed to think about how it was tragic that he > was murdered, we were supposed to think he got some karmic justice, > well deserved. Just like Umbridge did, just like Marietta did. We were > all supposed to think Snape was a baddie, and gloat at his death - > only to later get the "big reveal" that he was on the good side. zgirnius: Yes!! Absolutely. lizzyben: > JKR wanted Snape to die horribly, and plotted his death from way back > for the ultimate "irony"/poetic justice. And she did this in order to > get revenge on an old chemistry teacher who gave her a bad grade. In > her latest interview, JKR confirmed that Snape was based on John > Nettleship, and that he deserved his fate. zgirnius: Then I really don't see why she did not write OFH! or ESE! Snape instead of Snape who always protected Harry and with his dying breath, gave Harry the secret he needed to win (and the proof we needed to know the above). Then we could go on blissfully revelling in his well-deserved comeuppance indefinitely. I am less confident in my skills at Legilimency that you seem to be, but I would guess her hope was that the reader would share Harry's experience, that the reader would move from hatred of Snape and the vicarious thrill of his death to the emotionally affecting reversal of "The Prince's Tale". Which, if it was emotionally affecting, would tend to engender in a reader some regret at the previously felt glee. It was not effective for me personally, because I had guessed the twist, nor for some readers who despise Snape still, but I have certainly encountered a lot of readers for whom it did work that way. Regarding the (snipped) quote - it is not at all clear from what she says that the method of death was the revenge. I would have imagined that modelling the "mean teacher" Harry and his fans loved to hate for nearly seven whole books after her old "mean teacher" could be all she meant. That the "mean teacher" was also this tragic figure with a love story, redemptive arc, and death by Nagini does not have to be part of it. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 05:12:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:12:22 -0000 Subject: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178085 > lizzyben: > One reason that the whole Slyths=bigots thing annoys is because it > seems to overlook the crucial role that family & environment play in > forming people's ideology. Most children become members of the same > religion as their parents; most join the same political party as their > family, because that is what they have been taught to believe. So > taking a child like Regulus, and steeping him in pure-blood ideology > at home, then shipping him to spend his formative years at a hotbed of > pureblood bigotry, the wonder would be if he *wasn't* bigoted at the > end of that. Teenage boys especially tend to join gangs in order to > gain a sense of identity. The Mauraders had their gang; the gang > available for Slytherins was the Death Eaters. Becoming a Death Eater > made his family proud, & made him a part of what his friends were > doing - just as joining the Order did the same for James Potter. And > yet it seems, at the end, Regulus thought for himself & followed his > heart rather than his family's teachings. zgirnius: I just have to recap your final sentence, "And yet it seems, at the end, Regulus thought for himself & followed his heart rather than his family's teachings." because I so agree with it. However, in my opinion, Rowling in no way overlooks the importance of family and environment in shaping people's ideology. On the contrary, she provides us with numerous examples of this in action. Without any detail, the assorted Death Eaters/sympathizers who represent separate generations of the same family (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Mulciber, Rosier). Regulus, as you ably demonstrate above (and the little canon we have about him stresses the influence of his family and his pride in his House). Snape, who we learn is the product of an unhappy mixed marriage with a Muggle father who "doesn't like anything, much" and a witch mother who 'cowers' when he shouts, and whose relationship with his Muggle-born best friend becomes strained when he associates with the people he lives among in the "hotbed of pureblood bigotry". Draco, as well. We actually meet *his* parents and see quite clearly where he learned his ideas. The hopeful message is that, in the end, even people with all those disadvantages can choose to follow their hearts, and when they do, good things happen. As Snape did when he resolved he would do "Anything" (namely, betray the Dark Lord and his fellow DEs as a spy) to keep Lily safe, or when Draco, given the choice, realized he did not want to kill Dumbledore. And, of course, as when Regulus made his amazingly courageous sacrifice to destroy a Horcrux. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 19 08:29:38 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:29:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) Message-ID: <886552.7009.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178086 zgirnius wrote: I am less confident in my skills at Legilimency that you seem to be, but I would guess her hope was that the reader would share Harry's experience, that the reader would move from hatred of Snape and the vicarious thrill of his death to the emotionally affecting reversal of "The Prince's Tale". It really gets embarassing, the way JKR keeps harping on about that old teacher. OK, he gave you bad grade, get over it! He didn't set you up to be eaten by werewolf, did he? Talking about vindictive people who can't let go of their childhood grudges. Even the audience of children seemed to think it is too much. I don't understand how she can keep talking about Snape as being equal to her chemistry teacher after book 7. What she did to him up to book 3 is covered by getting even by whatever childhood traumas there were. But writing a traitor and a murderer, and killing him the most horrible death, and still reminding everyone at every opportunity that he is based on a real person - that really is too much. It's like she wants children to start throwing stones at his windows or something. Irene From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 19 10:40:54 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:40:54 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178087 Julie: > Thanks for the canon. I didn't recall the specifics, but I > did recall that it took awhile to get help to Arthur. Ceridwen: No problem. :D I'd looked it up after Rowling revealed that Arthur was the character who'd had the reprieve back in OotP. This way, I get twice the mileage for the same amount of checking. Julie: > And as > you say, he bled for half an hour before help came. There was > a copious amount of blood after that length of time, but it > just proves that Snape's injury was much more severe. Arthur > is still alive if very weak from loss of blood after some > thirty minutes, while Snape bled for perhaps five minutes > at most before he died. Ceridwen: Since the reveal that Arthur was the one who had been reprieved, I think she wrote that scene to kill him off and just didn't change it, making Arthur's recovery that much more spectacular. The problem is that, by changing the criteria for death by Nagini, and enhancing the magical medical, for me, anyway, that makes Snape's death harder to believe. If Arthur had been rescued earlier, or if Snape had died later, I may not have this disconnect. Julie: > Snape's injury was much more serious than Arthur's, which > makes sense if his carotid artery was severed. As with the > femoral or aortal arteries, a person would bleed out very > fast. While Arthur apparently bled continuously before > help came, he was clearly not bleeding from a major artery, > or he would have been well dead by the time help arrived. Ceridwen: I don't know much about anatomy, so I would probably have guessed jugular vein. I think the reason we're seeing different things is that I don't know that much about anatomy or medical. I do know that an injury to the veins or arteries in the neck would have a Muggle dying quickly. The thing for me is, we've been shown a world where people drop toddlers out of windows to see if they bounce, where a potion can re- grow bones when a spell has removed them, where a child can fall several stories and only break a bone, where a person can randomly lose body parts in transit, and the resulting injuries are minor and relatively easy to repair. To me, the normal medical realities don't apply. These characters are either more indestructable than people, or the magic is that much superior to Muggle medicine. Magic is the context from which Harry and Hermione interact with Snape's attack and death. That's the point Pippin tried to make, in my opinion - Harry didn't think of saving Snape when it's one of his defining character traits to save people, and Hermione also went against her character traits in not digging out the dittany and/or trying some spell to reverse the bite's effects. The character died because two other characters suddenly changed. The hero didn't try and save the victim, the smart girl didn't use her knowledge to try and save the victim. That's disappointing. It's tragic. It creates a huge disconnect for me. Couple that with Arthur's attack, which was supposed to have killed him but didn't, and the disconnect is too large for me to ignore. Julie: > But that's just my opinion Ceridwen: That's what makes the list so interesting. We all see things differently, even when we agree, because of different backgrounds. I think these differences enhance our reading experience. Sometimes, we learn something that changes our minds, sometimes we don't. I still feel the same way I did, but I can now find the carotid artery in Gray's Anatomy! ;) Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 19 11:01:52 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:01:52 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178088 Lizzybean: > JKR wanted Snape to die horribly, and plotted his death from way back > for the ultimate "irony"/poetic justice. And she did this in order to > get revenge on an old chemistry teacher who gave her a bad grade. In > her latest interview, JKR confirmed that Snape was based on John > Nettleship, and that he deserved his fate. http://blog.nola.com/living/2007/10/new_orleans_students_give_rowl Potioncat: Whoa. Hold on a minute. Do you have more than the recent New Orleans interview as your basis? Because that's not what she said. She was asked about writing if you have bad grades, then she brought up basing Snape on her chemistry teacher. They weren't discussing Snape's death, they weren't actually discussing Snape at all before she said Potions was based on Chemistry. Then she said the teacher deserved to be modeled as Snape-- -not that he deserved to die like Snape or that Snape deserved his death. She based the character and the classroom situation on her chemistry teacher. If she was really really just getting back at him, she wouldn't make the Snape character conflicted and, in the end, a hero. So that tells me that Nettleship was a tough, sarcastic teacher who would die for his students. The kind you hate as a kid and look back on differently. I've wondered for years if Nettleship did something to help JKR's mother or her family. Because JKR's mother worked at the school. I'm not sure if she worked for him, in the science department or just at the school. Not that I think he was in love with her, or betrayed her to an evil overboss. ;-) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Oct 19 12:09:32 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:09:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > It makes more sense that Narcissa lied to end Voldemort's reign. She > had nothing to gain from having Voldemort alive. She and her husband > were no longer valued death eaters. They were terrified. Voldemort > was using their property and their son as he pleased. Narcissa would > have heard Harry referred to as "the chosen one" to stop Voldemort, > and when she heard the miracle of his heartbeat, she would have known > it to be true. She risked her life, and her husband's and son's > lives, in the hope that Harry really could kill Voldemort and end > their misery. I agree, and I also believe that Narcissa - via the strength of her maternal love (magically amplified) - somehow intuited that Draco was still alive due to Harry's mercy - that "bond" which Dumbledore spoke of when one wizard saves the life of another. - CMC From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 19 13:19:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:19:44 -0000 Subject: Joining LV (wasRe: Likeable Regulus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178090 > Mike: > The problem with equating Regulus with Draco, or to some degree > Snape, is that we have nothing on stage of Reggie's to draw from. All > we have is Sirius' bitter remarks about Regulus being "soft" enough > to believe his parents. But with those same remarks, but seperate, he > brings in the whole royalty motif, complete with the 700-year > Tapestry of Lineage. Based on Ma Black's portrait, I don't doubt that > purebloodism was taught in the Black household. But when you add in > the Tapestry and the royalist posturing, I see their purebloodism > taking a different form than the brand Voldemort was pushing. And, in > the end, the Blacks distanced themselves from LV's position, after > Voldemort "showed his true colors". Potioncat: Here's a quote from Chapter 10: Kreacher is speaking, "But Master Regulus had proper pride: he knew what was due to the name of Black and the dignity of his pure blood. For years he talked of the Dark Lord, who was going to **bring the wizards out of hiding** to rule the Muggles and the Muggle-borns....and when he was sixteen years old, Master Regulus joined the Dark Lord." (** are mine) In chapter 16 Hermione reads from History of Magic, ""Upon the signature of the International Stature of Secrecy in 1689, wizards went into hiding for good." Nos chapter 18, Rita's quoting Albus's letter to Gellert, "Your point about Wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLES OWN GOOD--this, I think, is the crucial point. Yes we have been given power and yes, that power gives us the right to rule, but it also gives us reponsibilities over the ruled..." Rita goes on to say "...once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy and establishing Wizard rule over the Muggles." Regulus fell for the same temptation that Albus did. We know now that DEs wanted to persecute and kill Muggles and Muggleborns. If Sirius's comments are accurate, that many in the WW favored LV's plans until they learned what he was really planning. In the beginning they didn't know the extent of his intentions. There's a big difference between, "Let's come out of hiding and take our place as rulers" and "Kill the Muggles!" Wouldn't it have been easy to draw followers in with the idea of coming out of hiding? Wouldn't that sound so much better--even if you didn't think you were superior to Muggles? Coming out of hiding sounds good to me. Clearly, many of the followers were just as happy to come out of hiding and then get rid of Muggles. We have Kreacher's comments on what Regulus believed. We don't know what young Severus thought. But it's hard to understand that he went into the DEs planning to do away with Muggleborns. > Mike (I think) > Therefore, my impression was that Reg went along with his parents by > parroting their pureblood line because he thought himself not just an > elite pureblood, but styled himself as the ruling class among the > elite class. Like many kings and queens through the ages, Reggie > would spout the party line expected of him, whether he believed it or > not. (BTW, minus the royalty part, I think this applies to Severus > also.) Potioncat: Yep, that's what I think. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 14:04:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:04:51 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178091 > > Alla: > > Eh, okay. In RL, sure. To me not in the book verse. Harry saw him > > commit murder. > > zgirnius: > As we and Harry now know, he saw no such thing. He thought he saw > Snape murder Dumbledore; he actually only saw Snape kill Dumbledore. > This is why we have trials instead of deciding people are murderers > and acting accordingly, is I think Pippin's point. Alla: Yes, I thought I understood Pippin's point and **mine** is that there was no reason whatsoever in Harry's mind to doubt that he was watching a murder. That we learned that it was a killing on request afterwards is IMO irrelevant to Harry's state of mind when it happened. If Harry already watched Pensieve memories and then stood there in Shack to me would be different story. We have trials, sure, in RL. Story has trials when it is needed for the plot purposes only, no? I do not remember social services knocking on Dursleys' door and announcing that they are guilty of abuse or at least of neglect. I did not **need** to read about social services to determine that. I saw what they did to Harry, in my mind, they are guilty, guilty, guilty. I believe that the rules of determining who is guilty or innocent in story are a bit relaxed in comparison to RL, meaning that as a reader if I see the character commiting something horrible, I do not need a jury to tell me that. I do not see how Harry could doubt for one second that he saw a murder IMO of course. And his eyes did not play a trick of him after all, no? There was no fake AK or anything like that. Harry did not have all information to figure out what happened on the Tower - he did not know about the plan, etc. But what he saw, was exactly what he saw - Snape killing Dumbledore, just on Dumbledore's request. Made me think again that importance of "Harry's filter" is really not that important in general. Harry often does not have information, but what he sees, he sees correctly often enough IMO. In any event, sorry for rambling. > > Alla: > > I guess Voldemort is then technically an innocent man > > too? I doubt JKR planned to put him in front of the jury, Voldemort > > I mean. > > zgirnius: > Actually, since Harry and we have been blessed (cursed is perhaps a > better word) with direct perception of Voldemort's mind as he > committed several murders, I would say perhaps not. However, Harry's > actions towards him were consistent with such technical innocence. > All Harry did was defend himself using a Disarming Charm when > attacked by Voldemort. No one is suggesting he has an obligation to > let Voldemort kill him. (A second time ). Alla: I would say Harry's actions towards Voldemort were consistent with Harry's general unwillingness to kill people ( Lupin chasticising him), but that's IMO, not that Harry thought oh yeah, Voldemort is innocent, I better be careful with him. Again, speculating. And that's good that nobody is suggesting that Harry has an obligation to let Voldemort kill him, but it appears to me that it is sort of implied, no? Supposedly Harry has to **fight** Voldemort in the Shack on the off topic chance that it may help Snape. And again, what if Snape turns around and kills him for all Harry knows? And maybe Voldemort kills him first? > > Alla: > > To demand from Harry that he would save the murderer? I think Harry > > had enough to take care of. I see no reason why Harry should have > > thought of Snape at that time any difference than Voldemort, Bella, > > or other DE? I see no difference if I were to look from Harry POV. > > zgirnius: > I would expect the idea of providing medical attention to any and all > of the individuals named to cross Harry's mind, were he to have come > upon them bleeding severely and helpless, as he did in fact encounter > Snape. He has done as much in the past - how is Peter Pettigrew, > about to be murdered by his vengeful friends, any different? Alla: Yes, Peter. Another one where I do not remember JKR putting on trial to determine his guilt or innocence. Have you doubted his guilt in betraying the Potters for one second? I did not. I read about his betrayal, that was enough for me. I think what Harry did for Peter was entirely different. He knew that Sirius and Lupin will not attack him and Peter has no chance to attack him either and he was supposedly already captured. Oh. But medical attention is different. Sure, if Harry comes across the Snape **already** bleeding, etc, I would want him to try to do medical help or whatever. But maybe I did not understand Pippin's point after all. I thought Pippin wanted Harry to challenge Voldemort to help Snape. And that I find very disagreeable. Harry is expected to risk his life for the person who sold prophecy to Voldemort and who supposedly murdered Dumbledore in front of his eyes? Not in my mind at all. And keep in mind that I think I am being extremely generous to Snape here as far as I am concerned. I **hate** with passion what Snape did to Harry in school, but if it was ALL that Snape did to Harry, meaning not helped making him an orphan , or murdered Dumbledore, I would have expected Harry to help. Not that it would have made me terribly upset if he would not, but I would have thought that yes, Harry should help the greasy bastard, despite what he did to him in school. Because what happened in school is not life and death stuff. > zgirnius: > It's a question of what we believe about the narration of the HP > series, to drag another thread into this discussion. In whose opinion > was Snape dying? If in Harry's, then the use of that word indicates > he believed that Snape was about to die. In which case, his failure > to consider medical intervention is natural because in his opinion, > Snape was beyond help. Harry does all he can for the dying man - he > goes to Snape, sees Snape is trying to speak and bends low to hear > him, listens to his last words, takes the memories, and carries out > Snape's dying request. Alla: Sure, that too. My friend still has my book, ugh, so I cannot reread to check for myself how I perceive it now ( not that I want much to reread this scene), but that is true too. Harry does not flee, he even approaches Snape, etc. Did I mention that I think Harry did for Snape so much more than Snape ever deserved? ;) I mean, again, I think Harry's behaviour here maybe in line with speculation that shock prevented him from acting ( YAY) earlier, but he does what you said and he does not glee or anything. But again, I do not care one way or another. If Harry thought Snape was beyond help, he stayed anyways, which is great, that is for a man he wanted to do something very bad a year before. If he did not help because he thought that is one DE killing another and that is all there is to it, I am fine with it too. JMO, Alla From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 14:35:15 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:35:15 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4718C0A3.5000908@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178092 Mike: > he could get 12 DEs into the DoM unnoticed, but > he couldn't go himself to retrieve the prophesy? Geoff: > Harry had to be the one to take the prophecy: > ... > "Because the only people who are permitted to retrieve a > prophecy from the Department of Mysteries, Potter, are those > about whom it was made...." Since the prophecy was about BOTH, LV certainly was able to retrieve it. Instead, he wasted an entire year concocting and executing his elaborate scheme when he COULD have just waltzed in and taken himself. Worst of all, he didn't even realize it. So much for brilliance. --CJ From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 15:06:49 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:06:49 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178093 > Potioncat: > Whoa. Hold on a minute. Do you have more than the recent New Orleans > interview as your basis? Because that's not what she said. She was > asked about writing if you have bad grades, then she brought up > basing Snape on her chemistry teacher. > > They weren't discussing Snape's death, they weren't actually > discussing Snape at all before she said Potions was based on > Chemistry. Then she said the teacher deserved to be modeled as Snape-- > -not that he deserved to die like Snape or that Snape deserved his > death. lizzyben: Well, the audience AWWWED at the mention of Snape, showing sadness, and JKR interrupts with "Don't awe! He deserved it!" Jeez. And really, the child was asking about becoming a writer; she brought up Snape/Nettleship apropos of nothing in order to snipe at him once more about giving her a bad grade. Who do we know that's that vindictive & unable to get over old high school grudges? Oh yeah, Snape. Snape as shadow self is even more blatant in these interviews. So at the same time, it amuses me because w/all her comments, she's showing how similar to Snape she really is. And "He deserved it" was the mantra of POA, wasn't it? Sirius said that about sending Snape to a werewolf, Harry said that about blowing up Aunt Marge. People thought that this was a commentary on the dangers of vengence, but at this point I'm thinking that they were just meant to be taken as fact. Snape deserved it for sneaking, Aunt Marge deserved it for being mean to Harry, Marietta deserved it too. It is an extrapolation to say that she wrote Snape's death as a revenge, but not much of one, IMO. After all, she already said that the character was "revenge" on a teacher, & it wouldn't be much of a revenge if he got a happy ending. And IMO it's odd that she tells a group of students that a teacher deserved revenge for giving her a bad grade. That's just so petty & mean. Instead of encouraging kids to take responsibility for their studies, she's encouraging them to blame the teacher instead for giving them bad grades. Potioncat: > So that tells me that Nettleship was a tough, sarcastic teacher who > would die for his students. The kind you hate as a kid and look back > on differently. I've wondered for years if Nettleship did something > to help JKR's mother or her family. Because JKR's mother worked at > the school. I'm not sure if she worked for him, in the science > department or just at the school. Not that I think he was in love > with her, or betrayed her to an evil overboss. ;-) lizzyben: Mr. Nettleship did give JKR's mother a job when she really needed one. And JKR's mother enjoyed chemistry & became friends with the Nettleships. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for him to have JKR make "Snape" totally & pathetically in love with Harry's mother. And for her to confirm, again - yes, "Snape is based on Nettleship. I assume you all know how to Google his name & harass him? I can provide his address - he deserves payback for giving me a bad grade!" That's borderline harassment, IMO. He's not a public figure & he never signed up for this. What can he do about it? Nothing. It is a perfectly executed revenge - JKR is using her incredible power & influence to knock this teacher around. And that's just wrong. Uh, JKR, usually if you get a bad grade, that's your fault, not the teacher's fault. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 19 15:55:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:55:15 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178094 Alla: > I do not remember social services knocking on Dursleys' door and > announcing that they are guilty of abuse or at least of neglect. I > did not **need** to read about social services to determine that. I > saw what they did to Harry, in my mind, they are guilty, guilty, > guilty. Pippin: This actually supports my point. They were neither punished nor left to Voldemort. Dumbledore arranged for their protection. Harry wondering whether he would intervene to rescue Vernon foreshadows his failure to intervene to rescue Snape. Alla: > I believe that the rules of determining who is guilty or innocent in > story are a bit relaxed in comparison to RL, meaning that as a reader > if I see the character commiting something horrible, I do not need a > jury to tell me that. Pippin: They are not relaxed as far as the characters go, or Crouch would have done nothing wrong in failing to try Sirius. None of the eye witnesses doubted for a moment that they had seen Sirius commit murder. Crouch would surely be wrong to dismiss their testimony just because they weren't magical! Imagine if Fudge had had that option with Mrs. Figg! > > > Alla: > > > I guess Voldemort is then technically an innocent man > > > too? I doubt JKR planned to put him in front of the jury, > Voldemort I mean. Pippin: Obviously JKR did not want to have a trial for Voldemort, but he was given the opportunity to try for some remorse, and we do not know what Harry would have done if Voldemort had surrendered. We do know that Grindelwald was not executed. To me, there has to be something in the story to account for the way Harry changed after The Prince's Tale. He does a lot of things that seem nobler than I would have expected from the old Harry. He extends the protection he gained by dying over the whole WW, not just those he loves. He offers Voldemort a chance to repent that Voldemort himself recognizes as genuine. He takes time to tell Ron and Hermione exactly what happened in the pensieve and in the forest. He sets aside the Elder Wand. He forgives Snape for everything. He gets a Muggle driver's license. He sees good in Slytherin House. It seems to me that Snape is Harry's Ariana, the death he would have tried to prevent if he had been as decent a person as he thought he was. After that realization, IMO, it's no longer enough for him to feel that he's a decent person in his heart and do what his heart tells him. He has to consciously try to be good. > Alla: > > I think what Harry did for Peter was entirely different. He knew that > Sirius and Lupin will not attack him and Peter has no chance to > attack him either and he was supposedly already captured. Pippin: Actually, Harry did not know that Sirius and Lupin would not attack him. Sirius had already attacked both him and Ron to get at Peter. They did not lower their wands when Harry stepped in front -- he stood facing them. Pippin From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 15:52:27 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:52:27 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4718D2BB.7090700@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178095 Katie blessed us with this gem On 12/10/2007 00:47: > Are any of us really that scared or intimdated by Voldemort? Depends on what you mean. I think JK did a pretty decent job of demonstrating that LV was a moral monster, so I guess, on an academic or philosophical level, I did find his amorality quite frightening. But I agree that LV seemed to spend most of the seven books tripping over himself. Heck, any reasonable guy would figure after going oh-for-three perhaps AK *wasn't* the best choice; but LV doesn't seem to have had that much imagination. > I mean, damn, he could have killed Harry outright so many times. > It's almost like he didn't really want to. On this particular point, I read this rather as his vanity -- he wanted it to be a very public death that would allow him maximum gloating mileage. Look at the show he made of it in DH when he believed he finally had done Harry in. The guy seems to have had all the emotional security of a ten-year-old. --CJ From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Oct 19 16:02:21 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:02:21 -0800 Subject: Remorse (was: Could Harry have saved Snape?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D2F2A3A-D582-4452-8830-E7CBA490813A@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178096 On 2007, Oct 18, , at 12:55, dumbledore11214 wrote: > And yeah, before you ask, I think Harry's try for some remorse to > Voldemort was quite idiotic - in character, but idiotic IMO. > > Try for some remorse Riddle, and then what? We will forgive you and > let you go free? I wonder. I saw this as an attempt on Harry's part to shock Voldemort into saving his soul. The wording was very specifically like that that Hermione quoted when they were discussing Horcruxes and she was asked whether there was any way for him to save his soul. Hermione said that he had to show remorse. I think that Voldemort recognized that phrase from his reading of that book long ago and I think that is what made him even more fearful of Harry at that point. He then knew that Harry was indeed familiar with the background information about Horcruxes and knew nearly as much about them as Voldemort himself did. That, above all, would have struck fear into VM. IMO, Harry is not offering forgiveness, but is giving Voldemort one last chance to save his soul. VM isn't in the state of mind to respond to a cool logic approach, such as one that Dumbledore would employ. I think Harry rightly thinks that only the shock of knowing that Harry knows what VM knows is the only chance VM has. But, the trio also rightly predicted that VM would not be able to take that path. 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 Fri Oct 19 16:15:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:15:46 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178097 > Alla: > > I do not remember social services knocking on Dursleys' door and > > announcing that they are guilty of abuse or at least of neglect. I > > did not **need** to read about social services to determine that. I > > saw what they did to Harry, in my mind, they are guilty, guilty, > > guilty. > > Pippin: > This actually supports my point. They were neither punished nor left to > Voldemort. Dumbledore arranged for their protection. Harry wondering > whether he would intervene to rescue Vernon foreshadows his failure to > intervene to rescue Snape. Alla: Depends on how you define punishment. Dursleys, despise them as I am did not kill anybody and Dudley even manages to change his attitude about Harry. Petunia and Vernon I believe were punished as much as story allows to. Their sense of normalcy is no more and they have to go into hidings with freaks erm.... I mean wizards. Oh no, I was very happy with the end of Dursleys arc. > Pippin: > To me, there has to be something in the story to account for > the way Harry changed after The Prince's Tale. He does a lot > of things that seem nobler than I would have expected from > the old Harry. He extends the protection he gained by dying > over the whole WW, not just those he loves. He offers Voldemort > a chance to repent that Voldemort himself recognizes as genuine. > He takes time to tell Ron and Hermione exactly what happened > in the pensieve and in the forest. He sets aside the Elder > Wand. He forgives Snape for everything. He gets a Muggle driver's > license. He sees good in Slytherin House. Alla: Oh but you see there is not to me. All that Harry does, I totally expected from him at the end of the story when he has all the information. I already saw him saving Peter, that pretty much told me that push comes to shove Harry can do something extraordinary and more than ordinary person. And when Harry is Christlike figure? ( Sorry, do not mean to offend anybody, but that is how I perceive it) That is what Christ like figures do IMO - they offer protection to anybody and see good in everybody. So I am not going to assign Harry guilt of failure to save Snape. Actually no scratch that, I am not going to assume that he **should** feel such guilt. For all I know, he may feel that. As to what changed Harry even more? I say his death experience, nothing more than that IMO. Pippin: > It seems to me that Snape is Harry's Ariana, the death he > would have tried to prevent if he had been as decent > a person as he thought he was. After that realization, IMO, > it's no longer enough for him to feel that he's a decent person > in his heart and do what his heart tells him. He has to > consciously try to be good. Alla: Wow. Sorry, not buying. Hopefully JKR did not mean for Harry to feel that he owes Snape to save him, that would be Sainthood in the extreme to me. Not that I do not think that what Harry did for Snape after his death was not Sainthood already of course, but after Harry came back, I feel that he is different in that sense. Dumbledore's innocent ill sister and the man who did that much evil to Harry? No, comparison is not working for me at all. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 16:35:24 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:35:24 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178098 > Alla: > Yes, I thought I understood Pippin's point and **mine** is that there > was no reason whatsoever in Harry's mind to doubt that he was > watching a murder. That we learned that it was a killing on request > afterwards is IMO irrelevant to Harry's state of mind when it > happened. zgirnius: I agree with you, I don't blame Harry, or McGonagall, or anyone, for thinking Snape a murderous traitor during the course of DH. Regardless of what he thinks he knows about Snape, if he walked away from Snape not caring whether he lived or died, I would find that callous and it would lower Harry in my estimation. I guess I have high standards for my fictional heroes. > Alla: > I do not remember social services knocking on Dursleys' door and > announcing that they are guilty of abuse or at least of neglect. I > did not **need** to read about social services to determine that. I > saw what they did to Harry, in my mind, they are guilty, guilty, > guilty. zgirnius: I also think they are guilty of neglect. If Harry therefore left them at the mercy of Death Eaters when he had the means to hide them, would that be OK with me? Absolutely not. It would, again, lessen my respect for Harry. > > zgirnius: > > However, Harry's actions towards him were consistent with such technical innocence. > Alla: > I would say Harry's actions towards Voldemort were consistent with > Harry's general unwillingness to kill people ( Lupin chasticising > him), but that's IMO, not that Harry thought oh yeah, Voldemort is > innocent, I better be careful with him. Again, speculating. zgirnius: To me this is the same thing. A general unwillingness to kill people is giving the people one is unwilling to kill the benefit of the doubt/a second chance. > Alla: > Supposedly Harry has to **fight** Voldemort in the Shack on the off > topic chance that it may help Snape. And again, what if Snape turns > around and kills him for all Harry knows? And maybe Voldemort kills > him first? zgirnius: I am discussing whether Harry should have helped Snape once Voldemort left, to be clear. It is just that my reasons for believeing this coincide with Pippin's as I understand hers. And my answer is yes, absolutely, 100%, and his failure to think of it was disappointing to me as a reader. I am now less sure he did fail to think of it, which makes me happy because I like to like Harry. > Alla: > Yes, Peter. Another one where I do not remember JKR putting on trial > to determine his guilt or innocence. Have you doubted his guilt in > betraying the Potters for one second? I did not. I read about his > betrayal, that was enough for me. zgirnius: I believe it too. Peter may well be my least favorite character, the one whose particular variety of despicableness I find the most distasteful. Nonetheless if Harry had let Lupin and Sirius kill him without lifting a finger (gosh, this is getting repetitive) I would have thought less of Harry forever after, unless I was explicitly shown Harry feeling sorry about it at some later date and endeavoring to change his ways. Can I just say that I loved that when the silver hand started to move towards Peter's neck in "Malfoy Manor", Harry tried to pull it away? Of course Harry should have tried to stop it! If he hadn't...you know. I've said it enough already. That's what I initially saw missing in Snape's death scene. Only now I am arguing myself into the opinion that his decision to enter the room and approach Snape was the same sort of reaction, and his seeming failure to help was a product of the circumstances, not a lack of the right intentions on Harry's part. > Alla: > If he did not help because he thought that is one DE killing another > and that is all there is to it, I am fine with it too. zgirnius: I guess I am just pickier than you. Lucky for me, it seems The Hero (Harry) and my personal favorite hero (Snape) both live up to what I would want from them. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 16:59:12 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:59:12 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178099 Here is a news article of an interview with Rowling. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml So now we have it from Rowling herself. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 17:04:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:04:14 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178100 > zgirnius: > I agree with you, I don't blame Harry, or McGonagall, or anyone, for > thinking Snape a murderous traitor during the course of DH. > Regardless of what he thinks he knows about Snape, if he walked away > from Snape not caring whether he lived or died, I would find that > callous and it would lower Harry in my estimation. I guess I have > high standards for my fictional heroes. Alla: I would still like Harry same. Especially since he did not leave, but that just makes me like him more, not vice versa. I would NOT want Harry for example to try to kill Snape as a revenge for DD death, (again not that it would make me terribly upset if he would try), but that is the only thing I would not want him to do in regard to Snape. Everything else will do as far as I am concerned. But quick question about high standards for fictional characters, do you have the same high standards for Snape? Not wanting to debate his teachings again, but does his treatment of Harry over the years lowered him in your eyes at all? Because if it does not, I am sorry, but I do not agree that you have high standards for the fictional characters. I would say you have high standards for certain fictional characters and low standards for others ( SORRY, you did not answer yet and I am already hypothecising). And that is of course your absolute right to do - we like some characters and do not like others( me too), I am just answering your assertion about "high standards", that's all. Because I find it highly disagreeable when high standards are applied to innocent child, who just **has to** respect him as a teacher, despite Snape attacking him at first lesson and just **has to** help him all the evil Snape did regardless, but not to Snape. And the but Harry is the hero, just does not cut it for me. I find it highly realistic, Harry's reactions to Snape, I mean. The once he had every right to feel and I would not have it any other way. Not saying that this is your argument, just general response based on many many arguments in the past and present. > zgirnius: > I also think they are guilty of neglect. If Harry therefore left them > at the mercy of Death Eaters when he had the means to hide them, > would that be OK with me? Absolutely not. It would, again, lessen my > respect for Harry. Alla: Eh, okay. I would say that it is fine by me that Harry offered, but for example if they refused, if I were on Harry's place, would not shed a tear. But again Dursleys are to me despicable, but not Snape. > zgirnius: > I am discussing whether Harry should have helped Snape once Voldemort > left, to be clear. It is just that my reasons for believeing this > coincide with Pippin's as I understand hers. And my answer is yes, > absolutely, 100%, and his failure to think of it was disappointing to > me as a reader. I am now less sure he did fail to think of it, which > makes me happy because I like to like Harry. Alla: Oh, that does not make so disagreeable then whether he thought of it or not. At least you are not arguing that Harry should have risked his life **for Snape**. I can just imagine Harry's thought - Gee, Snape, you helped me become an orphan and killed Dumbledore, but hey, I like to save people, let me try to kill Voldemort in order for you to live and maybe attack me brom behind. To help Snape, who is bleeding and on the floor, sure, at least there is no danger for Harry to do so. But as you said, maybe he sort of tried. Helping somebody who needs medical attention even if he is an enemy, yes, sure. But Snape, oh dear, if he wanted to he could gase in those green eyes and see respect for so many years. > > Alla: > > If he did not help because he thought that is one DE killing > another > > and that is all there is to it, I am fine with it too. > > zgirnius: > I guess I am just pickier than you. Lucky for me, it seems The Hero > (Harry) and my personal favorite hero (Snape) both live up to what I > would want from them. Alla: Yes, Harry totally lived to my expectations, flaws and all that. And so funny that I am content with how Snape ended up as well. OMG, just think, how funny it is, I still feel the need to talk about this characters as if they are real people. Book is done and Harry lives and Snape died only on the pages and I am still happy that Harry survived and greasy git is dead. As my coworker said we get to know them as real family, heheh. All I can say Bravo JKR :) Later, Zara. Leaving my computer for now. Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Oct 19 17:47:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:47:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore... Message-ID: <23727542.1192816068064.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178101 From: Lee Kaiwen >Since the prophecy was about BOTH, LV certainly was able to retrieve it. >Instead, he wasted an entire year concocting and executing his elaborate >scheme when he COULD have just waltzed in and taken himself. Worst of >all, he didn't even realize it. So much for brilliance. Bart: It's kind of hard to make the world, and notably the Ministry, believe that you are dead when you walk into the Ministry and steal an item. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 17:54:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:54:22 -0000 Subject: Ignoring JKR's "intentions" (Was: Could Harry have saved Snape?) In-Reply-To: <886552.7009.qm@web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178102 zgirnius wrote: > I am less confident in my skills at Legilimency that you seem to be, but I would guess her hope was that the reader would share Harry's experience, that the reader would move from hatred of Snape and the vicarious thrill of his death to the emotionally affecting reversal of "The Prince's Tale". > Irene replied: > It really gets embarassing, the way JKR keeps harping on about that old teacher. OK, he gave you bad grade, get over it! He didn't set you up to be eaten by werewolf, did he? Talking about vindictive people who can't let go of their childhood grudges. > > Even the audience of children seemed to think it is too much. I don't understand how she can keep talking about Snape as being equal to her chemistry teacher after book 7. What she did to him up to book 3 is covered by getting even by whatever childhood traumas there were. But writing a traitor and a murderer, and killing him the most horrible death, and still reminding everyone at every opportunity that he is based on a real person - that really is too much. It's like she wants children to start throwing stones at his windows or something. Carol responds: Make that a "traitor and murderer" who turns out to be a misunderstood hero with a key role in the protagonist's defeat of the villain--not to mention that JKR has recently expressed affection for Snape ("I like him") as opposed to her former chemistry teacher, against whom she nurses a Snapelike grudge. (No wonder she's so good at creating adult characters who can't get over their own adolescence: Snape, sirius Black, Lupin, even, to some degree, Dumbledore). JKR, at times, doesn't seem to realize that, from the moment she put that poetic introduction to Potions into Snape's mouth in SS/Ps, he ceased to be the teacher he was based on (given a new setting and black robes) and became a character in his own right, sarcastic and unfair, but intriguing, mysterious, brilliant, and, for some readers, sinisterly sexy. Obviously, the real teacher never interacted with her as Snape did with Harry--never saved her life, never spent seventeen years of his life atoning for his role in her mother's death, never took on the hatred of the WW to honor an old man's wish to die in his own way, never helped her to defeat a Dark Lord. Maybe JKR needs to read Roland Barthes's essay, "The Death of the Author" to understand that the moment her books appeared in print, they ceased to be hers (except with regard to copyrights and royalties). For Barthes, JKR is no more responsible for creating her works than Trelawney for producing her prophecies. She's merely a "scriptor," the person who wrote them down, as opposed to an "author" who has "authority" over their creation and interpretation. (I'm not a postmodernist and don't agree with Barthes, but I do agree with him that the author is not the sole arbiter of the meaning of her books or even their most, erm, "authoritative" or perceptive critic.) http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/whatis.htm Barthes is, of course, radical and postmodern, and I doubt that JKR would agree with him that a text is only "a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture" [nothing original in it, just a selection of images and ideas that have been previously expressed] or that "the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred," but perhaps she would see some validity in Barthes's assertion that the responsibility for interpreting the text lies with the reader. Or, less radically, she might consider the view of Barthes's New Critical predecessors (whose influence he fails to acknowledge), Wimsatt and Beardsley, who argued in "The Intentional Fallacy" that a poem [read "work of literature"] "is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem [or story or novel] belongs to the public." If we follow Wimsatt and Beardsley's reasoning, JKR is confusing the internal meaning of her book(s), available to the public through language (and subject to interpretation by the reader), with the external meaning, her own thoughts and feelings, which may have inspired the book but are not part of it: 1) internal--The internal is what is public: "it is discovered through the semantics and syntax of a poem [literary work], through our habitual knowledge of the language, through grammars, dictionaries, and all the literature which is the source of dictionaries, in general through all that makes a language and culture." 2) External--The external is "private or idiosyncratic; not part of the work as a linguistic fact: it consists of revelations . . . about how or why the poet wrote the poem." The complete essay can be found at http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/Fallacy.htm and a simplified overview (from which the enumerated points are taken) at http://www.michaelbryson.net/academic/wimsattbeardsley.html What matters for Wimsatt and Beardsley (and for me) is the words on the page and how the reader interprets them (within reason: no one should think that Snape is from Mars, for example, or that Harry healed Snape off-page but we just didn't see it). Not only is it impossible (IMO) for any author to fully know, much less fully realize (in the sense of bringing them into existence) his or her own intentions, the author has no right to dictate how readers interpret or react to a scene or character. A work of literature exists independently of its author. (We don't rely on Chaucer's or Shakespeare's letters--those few that have survived the ravages of time--to interpret their works. Why do we need JKR's inconsistent, ambiguous, and biased remarks to interpret hers?) Suppose that the HP books were anonymous or that JKR had never given an interview or held a chat. Would we be at a loss to interpret them without her "authoritative" voice? I don't think so. In fact, we'd probably be better off. At any rate, instead of blaming her for failing to recognize or realize (bring about) her intentions, I think we should ignore her intentions altogether and just look at the text. Is Snape redeemed or punished or both *within the context of the novel* and without regard to JKR's mixed feelings about him? Is Lupin's death a punishment? Is Tonks's? They die because they chose to fight against the DEs, not because Lupin is a werewolf or a weak person (who finally finds his courage). And, though Bellatrix specifically kills her sister's "brat" (who dared to marry a werewolf) to "prune" her family tree, is Tonks's death a punishment in JKR's eyes? Is Colin Creevey's death a punishment? The poor kid was already Petrified in CoS for the crime of being a Muggle-born. Now he's "punished" in DH by being killed in battle. For what crime? Carrying around a camera and annoying Harry? And how about Dobby, ignominiously stabbed in the back by Bellatrix after performing a heroic rescue? The only death that appears to me to be a punishment (unless Snape is being "punished" for being the supposed master of the Elder Wand, a mistake with ironic and tragic consequences) is Wormtail's, and his punishment was engineered by Voldemort himself when he gave Wormtail the cursed reward of the silver hand: "May your loyalty never waver." It did waver, though only feebly and briefly, and he was killed by his own hand. Does his death by strangulation mean that JKR is punishing him? Maybe. But she kills innocent characters, too, starting with Cedric Diggory in GoF. Some deaths are fitting: Bellatrix's paralleling her cousin Sirius's. Others are just the result of being in the way (the German mother and her children murdered by Voldemort). If we're going to explore death in the books, IMO we should compare the deaths of various characters and other characters' reactions to them, and leave JKR, whose intentions even she can't fully know and we can only dimly guess from the contradictory bits and pieces she gives us in her interviews, out of the picture. Within the context of the book itself, Snape dies helping Harry, and he dies as he has lived for the last seventeen years, loving Lily and atoning for his role in her death. Within the context of the book, we see that there's an afterlife, and that remorse can save the soul. Within the context of the book, we see that Harry comes to understand Snape and to forgive him, publicly vindicating him, telling his full story to Ron and Hermione, and ultimately, naming his second son after him. He is the only dead character besides Dumbledore who is specifically referred to in the epilogue as a headmaster and "probably the bravest man I ever knew." It does not matter, IMO, that JKR can't get over her feelings toward her old chemistry teacher. We should be grateful to him for providing the original model upon whom JKR's "gift of a character" was based. But Snape is not that teacher. And if Snape's courage and love for Lily and his role in Harry's victory and his ultimate redemption qualify as revenge, then that's a very odd form of revenge which perhaps suggests that Harry is a better man, erm, person than JKR is. Carol, for whom the world and characters JKR has created are more important and more interesting than JKR's own limited and biased views of them From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 18:10:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:10:20 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > But quick question about high standards for fictional characters, do > you have the same high standards for Snape? Not wanting to debate his > teachings again, but does his treatment of Harry over the years > lowered him in your eyes at all? Because if it does not, I am sorry, > but I do not agree that you have high standards for the fictional > characters. Montavilla47: I think this is an interesting question. I don't really approach fictional characters the same way I approach people in real life, so I don't use the same criteria. A real person who is mean, I would avoid. A fictional person who is mean I can either enjoy because their meanness is comical in some way or enjoy because their meanness leads to an enjoyable pay-off. (Like Umbridge can be enjoyed because she gets her comeuppance.) But, looking strictly at Snape, the difference between him and Harry is that Snape starts out at a much lower point than Harry. Harry naturally has our sympathies because he's the hero of the story. The first time we see Snape, his very glance seems to cause Harry pain. Five ticks down on the Snape Sympathy Scale (SSS) for that. Three ticks up for the cool potions speech. Ten ticks down for hard questions and unfair taking of points. Three ticks up for strange behavior during the troll attack. Two ticks down for the library book. Two ticks up for the bloody leg. Ten ticks down for "trying to kill Harry" during the Quidditch match. Two ticks up for getting set on fire. And so it goes... Snape continued to get ticks up and down from me until the end of HBP. (His snide behavior when he collected Harry at the gate? Many, many ticks down. However, Harry was losing a few ticks himself.) But, at the end of HBP, his ticks went up into the stratosphere for me. Why? Because I knew he had to have killed Dumbledore under Dumbledore's orders and I knew he hated doing it. And when he went off on Harry for calling him a coward, I knew it had to be because he had either just done the bravest thing in his life or that he was about to do something even braver. Mind you, he lost a few ticks, even as he earned a ton, when he attacked Harry and had to be chased off by Buckbeak. During DH, all tick-taking was suspended until the Prince's Tale, because I knew we weren't getting any real information about Snape until then. So, with Snape, it's constant tick-taking. Should Snape be down-ticked for impassively watching while Charity Burbage is killed and eaten by a snake? I tick him up for that, because he wants to help her, but if he does, then the DD's plan is ruined and there isn't any other plan out there. In the same, I don't (myself) down-tick Harry for sitting by while Snape is attacked by the Snake. When I first read DH, I didn't down- tick Harry or Hermione for not helping Snape and leaving his body lying in the shack. But, when it's pointed out that Hermione does have the herbs and the skill to heal people, it does seem very sad (or perhaps "convenient" is the word I want) that she doesn't even try. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 18:35:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:35:48 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178104 Alla wrote: > I do not see how Harry could doubt for one second that he saw a murder IMO of course. > > And his eyes did not play a trick of him after all, no? There was no fake AK or anything like that. Harry did not have all information to figure out what happened on the Tower - he did not know about the plan, etc. > > But what he saw, was exactly what he saw - Snape killing Dumbledore, just on Dumbledore's request. Made me think again that importance of "Harry's filter" is really not that important in general. > > Harry often does not have information, but what he sees, he sees correctly often enough IMO. Carol responds: Which is exactly the point of the unreliable narrator (or, specifically, the Harry filter. The words and actions are accurately described (though JKR sometimes omits some crucial information, such as who spoke a certain line or who cast a particular spell), but the pov character's reactions and interpretation (based on misinformation or mistaken assumptions or whatever) is misleading. Let's look at the passage in question: "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. "'Severus . . . please. . . .' "Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbleodre. "'*Avada Kedavra!' "A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Harry's scream of horror never left him; silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang, suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight" (HBP am. ed. 596). This passage shows JKR's writing at its best. Who didn't feel a thrill of horror as it happened? Who didn't feel as helpless as Harry? Who but the most diehard Snape supporter didn't think, at least for a moment, that DD had been wrong and that Snape had betrayed him? We do have facts, a scene accurately described, in Snape's gazing at DD, raising his wand, pointing it at DD, saying the spell we know to be the Killing Curse, hitting DD with a jet of green light that sends him over the battlements. But much of the rest of the narrator's commentary is colored by Harry's interpretation of the scene as an act of treachery and murder. The narrator describes Snape's face as reflecting "hatred and revulsion," emotions that Harry attributes to Snape, but the reader can only guess what Snape truly feels. Many readers note a similarity to Harry's feelings in the cave when he forcefeeds the potion to DD, but neither Harry nor the narrator explicitly makes that connection. That the parallel is deliberate seems likely based on similar parallels elsewhere in the books and on the events of DH. Nevertheless, Harry's interpretation (as expressed by the narrator) seems accurate at the time. Similarly, the narrator accurately depicts Harry's silent scream of horror, which in turn conditions the reader's reaction. Most readers, whether they already thought that Snape was evil or had hopes that he was good that seem to be destroyed here, are horrified along with Harry. And the image of DD's body floating like a rag doll over the battlements, seemingly suspended in time, emphasizes his frailty and helplessness and somehow makes Snape's action seem more evil (despite the fact that getting the body off the tower gets it away from Fenrir Greyback and prevents him from having it for "afters"). Thanks to this depiction, which accurately depicts the action but misinterprets it based on Harry's preconceptions, biases, and lack of a key piece of information, most readers believed, along with Harry himself, that Snape was a traitor and a murderer--an impression that JKR deliberately sustained (though planting clues to the contrary) throughout DH until it was time for the reversal/revelation of "The Prince's Tale." Carol, who thinks that the so-called "Harry filter" is extremely important and that the reader should be aware of it any time that the narration shifts from objective observation (e.g., "Snape raised his wand") to subjective interpretation or emotional reactions From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 19:46:49 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:46:49 +0800 Subject: Prophecy, Shmophecy, what's the big deal? (Was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore...) In-Reply-To: <23727542.1192816068064.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23727542.1192816068064.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <471909A9.4040100@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178105 Lee Kaiwen > Since the prophecy was about BOTH, LV certainly was able to retrieve it. Bart > It's kind of hard to make the world, and notably the Ministry, believe > that you are dead when you walk into the Ministry and steal an item. Lee Kaiwen: A) Who says anyone would have to know? As has been pointed out before, there must be any number of ways Voldy could have snuck in without being noticed. B) The MoM was already hell-bent-for-leather to deny LV's return. Barring something absolutely spectacular -- say, a pyrotechnic showdown between LV and Dumbledore in the MoM foyer? -- it's hard to see how a missing prophecy would force the MoM to quit trying to sweep the evidence under a rug. Which brings up another question: What WAS the big deal about LV hearing the prophecy? They didn't want him to find out Harry was dangerous? He already knew that. They were afraid LV would try to kill Harry? Again, he was already doing that. Maybe it was the bit about "neither can live while the other survives"? I just don't see anything in the prophecy that could have helped LV that he didn't already know. --CJ From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Oct 19 19:58:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:58:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle? Message-ID: <2141676.1192823927217.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178106 From: Lee Kaiwen >But I agree that LV seemed to spend most of the seven books tripping >over himself. Heck, any reasonable guy would figure after going >oh-for-three perhaps AK *wasn't* the best choice; but LV doesn't seem to >have had that much imagination. Bart: One - Baby Harry Two - GOF Three - DH, one, works, but Harry gets better, minor backfire. Four - DH, two, major backfire And wasn't there one in OOP? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 21:52:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:52:25 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178107 > Alla wrote: > > > > I do not see how Harry could doubt for one second that he saw a > murder IMO of course. > > > > And his eyes did not play a trick of him after all, no? There was no > fake AK or anything like that. Harry did not have all information to > figure out what happened on the Tower - he did not know about the > plan, etc. > > > > But what he saw, was exactly what he saw - Snape killing Dumbledore, > just on Dumbledore's request. Made me think again that importance of > "Harry's filter" is really not that important in general. > > > > Harry often does not have information, but what he sees, he sees > correctly often enough IMO. > > Carol responds: > > Which is exactly the point of the unreliable narrator (or, > specifically, the Harry filter. The words and actions are accurately > described (though JKR sometimes omits some crucial information, such > as who spoke a certain line or who cast a particular spell), but the > pov character's reactions and interpretation (based on misinformation > or mistaken assumptions or whatever) is misleading. Let's look at the > passage in question: > Alla: I was arguing specifically against one charge against the narrator in this scene that facts are **not** described accurately, that is all. I mean, the facts as in Snape kills Dumbledore with real Avada Kedavra. And Zara did not even exactly made that charge, I just extrapolated from her sentence that Harry saw nothing to that effect. To me Harry saw exactly what happened, he just did not know the reasons for it. Narrator does not have all the information and makes inaccurate conclusion based on that, but scene itself does not change into **not** killing, it does not change into fake AK, it does not change into Snape trying to save Dumbledore. It is what is until we have additional facts, which do **not** change the facts that we already have in this scene IMO, Snape's expression IS still the same, just for a different reason. What I am saying is that if the definition of unreliable narrator or Harry's filter is that narrator **always** describes facts and actions correctly as he sees them and his conclusions are wrong if he does not have all information, then sure, I can see that. But if the definition of Harry's filter is that he inaccurately describes what he sees and interprets the facts that he **has**, then no I am not buying it. And I did saw definition like that as well somewhere. Even with not all the information narrator is often correct. Narrator for example is absolutely and positively correct after his first lesson IMO. Snape does hate Harry exactly as narrator tells us. We do not have all the information why he hates Harry, but that is the situation when I really do not care and I see no filter present and agree with conclusion that narrator makes. Harry's perception after first lesson was spot on, IMO. Not that it was so hard to make such conclusion and again IMO it really does not matter that Snape was in love with Harry's mother and hated Harry because of that too. The additional information only makes Snape more despicable in my eyes. Not because he loved Harry's mother, but because he hated her child. JMO, Alla, who thinks that as long as we know that narrator's reactions are based on complete information we can trust him to make the right conclusion or at least I do. Sadly for the sake of the plot narrator does not always have complete information, heheh. From easimm at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 22:03:59 2007 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:03:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > wrote: > I agree that the Malfoys had nothing to gain from Voldemort's > return, though I wouldn't put it past Lucius to try to regain his > old position as LV's right-hand man with Snape dead if LV had > won. ... Snorky responds: If I were Voldemort, I might hire Lucius as dog-catcher, but not as my right-hand man, because he failed too many times, and I'm not the forgiving sort. Lucius was a quivering useless mess by the time of the battle at Hogwarts. > wrote: > ...And I don't think that Narcissa's > sentiments would have changed toward Voldie if he hadn't abused and > disgraced her family, and, especially, endangered her son. I don't > think that she was "dissatisfied with DEhood" per se (JKR says that > she didn't have the Mark) and she seems loyal enough in HBP and DH > in everything that doesn't relate to Draco. I also don't deny that > Harry's perception of her motives could be faulty (though I think he > sees more clearly after King's Cross than ever before, in particular a > recognition of the humanity of the Slytherins). > Snorky responds: In the sixth book, Narcissa thinks that the solution to the danger to her son and husband from Voldemort is to give Voldemort what he wants, as is shown in the first chapter when she insists Snape help Draco and kill Dumbledoor if necessary. At the start of the sixth book, her son and her husband have already been abused. Lucius is a hostage, and a young teenager is being forced, probably for a laugh, to save his father's life. In the seventh book, by saving Harry it seems she has decided that helping Voldemort isn't something that will help her family anymore. > wrote: > My question is, suppose that Draco had died in the RoR and Harry had > told Narcissa that Draco was dead. What would her reaction have been > then? I think she would have been too angry and distraught to be > rational, and perhaps would have blamed Harry for Draco's death. I > think she would have told Voldie that Harry was alive in that case. Snorky responds: She might not have cared whether she or Harry lived or died if she had found out Draco was dead. In view of her lack of fighting for Voldemort when she entered the castle, it looks like, to me at least, she left the Deatheater values behind. It could go either way, but I think she was fed up with being a Deatheater (bad pun, bad pun!) I think Narcissa would have lied for Harry even if he had said Draco was dead because she had witnessed too much horror to accept Voldemort's reign as good for anyone besides Voldemort. Unlike her sister, she wasn't really psychotic. I think Narcissa didn't want anything more to do with Voldemort, because when she was in the castle, during the final fighting, she only looked for her son, and didn't help the Deatheaters in any way. This is just an aside, but I wouldn't have put it past Voldemort to let Narcissa die while everyone attacked Harry at once, if she had given him away. Voldemort had already treated her with contempt in front of everyone, so saying Harry was dead was probably safer for her than saying he was alive, no matter what the truth was. But I don't really think that she would have used this as a reason to say Harry was dead if Harry had told her Draco was dead. > wrote: ...I imagine the > elder Malfoys slipping back into something like the life they led > before Voldemort's second rise to power, but without their former > influence. Maybe Narcissa inherited Bellatirx's wealth (assuming that > Rodolphus and Rabastan were dead). What they did all day, sitting > around like a pair of dragons on their pile of gold, we're left to > imagine. It must have been a boring and unproductive life. Snorky responds: Poor Lucius probably headed back to prison, and I wonder if JKR left room in her universe for people who'd want to sue the Malfoys down to their last Galleon for damages. It's nice to be back! -Snorky From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 19 22:16:37 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:16:37 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Here is a news article of an interview with Rowling. > > http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml > > So now we have it from Rowling herself. > > Tonks_op > It was fairly explicit all along if you read the signs. I was firmly convinced that Harry was going to die from OOTP onwards. In fact I still feel in some ways that the Deathly Hallows were her 'get out of jail free card' to enable the sacrificial death without him actually dying. But I can also see that they 'gave' Harry his resurrection which also fits the mythic pattern. After all it goes back further than Christianity but because our culture is 'Christian' that is the theme that is most evoked. In the end though I am left feeling that the Harry Potter books were an old tune played on a new instument. That is not to denigrate them at all, they mined the store of myths and legends which many many authors have done before, Tolkien, Lewis, Cooper et al. It is amusing though that so many Christians were so anti-potter (and many still are). The themes of the books transcend all religions though and I shall always be grateful for the quest they forced me to take, to find understanding of my own reaction to them and the knowledge I have gained as a result. allthecoolnamesgone From easimm at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 22:17:11 2007 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:17:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178110 pippin_999 wrote: > Narcissa couldn't have known whether it would be easy to finish Harry > off, since she couldn't have any idea why he was still alive in the > first place. She wasn't listening in on Dumbledore's explanation.:) > > OTOH, she could be certain that if Voldemort thought Harry was dead, > he would return at once to Hogwarts to brag of his victory. > > Snorky responds I think there was ample proof that it was known throughout the Wizarding world, especially among the death eaters, that Voldemort had some difficulty hurting or killing Harry. Several deatheaters, starting with the fake Moody in book 4, wanted to kill Harry off for Voldemort. I'm pretty sure the deatheaters would have relished the chance of being there first. But it is an interesting thought, whether the deatheaters might have thought they too could not hurt Harry. From Harry's nervousness, it seems clear he didn't think so. He was quite frightened of being found out and being killed, for real this time. If Voldemort had learned Harry was alive, Voldemort's return to Hogwarts would have been delayed for a couple of seconds. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 23:42:24 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:42:24 -0000 Subject: Squib Life Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178111 I've wondered for a bit about the place of Squibs in the WW. It really is the ultimate damnation to be born a Squib... but isn't there more that they could do? >From what we've seen, career options seem to be janitor in place most likely to remind you of your ultimate genetic failing, and spy on The Boy Who Lived, which is a pretty limited field, I'd imagine. But couldn't they do more? It's hard to be a part of the Muggle world knowing what else is out there (I wonder how many Squibs have asked for memory modification and went on to live perfectly normal Muggle lives.), but a career in Muggle relations might be good. Ambassador to the muggle world isn't a great job, but it's not too bad. Then, what about the other classes at school. We don't really know too much about ancient runes or arithmancy - maybe squibs could learn to do that. Astrology appears to be done by centaurs without magic - maybe all those 1-900 numbers are manned by squibs! Finally, what about potions? A good potionsmaster is probably highly regarded. As long as you get your hands on the right ingredients, you should be able to make the potion, right? Or, if not, if being made by a non-magical person renders the potion defunct... then a good job might be as a potionmaster's assistant - jumping in and nulling the potion when things go wrong! So, what do you think? There's got to be more to squib life than what we've seen. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 20 00:00:46 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:00:46 -0000 Subject: Squib Life In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178112 Prep0strus: > I've wondered for a bit about the place of Squibs in the WW. It > really is the ultimate damnation to be born a Squib... but isn't there > more that they could do? > > From what we've seen, career options seem to be janitor in place most > likely to remind you of your ultimate genetic failing, and spy on The > Boy Who Lived, which is a pretty limited field, I'd imagine. > > But couldn't they do more? It's hard to be a part of the Muggle world > knowing what else is out there Celoneth: I've wondered about this too. I believe in one interview JKR gave, she said that Mrs. Figg supported herself by breeding Kneazles & half-Kneazles - so that type of work is probably out there. Potions seems to require some magic, and divination for humans appears to be a skill that one is born with, and Astronomy seems to be taught in relation to other magical subjects so I wouldn't see them having careers in those areas. Filch seems to be a rare exception (it would be very interesting to learn why he continues to stay at Hogwarts given how frustrating it must be to be outdone by schoolkids) I imagine there are few squibs that actively participate in wizard life - its probably like Muggle-Magic marriages where the Muggle probably still does their Muggle job but still is part of the magic family. I think its stated that squibs don't go to Hogwarts, so probably they attend Muggle schools and become mostly integrated into Muggle society. That's probably the best thing, we seen in DH how hard it is for Wizards to survive w/o wands in that society, it must be much worse for squibs who don't have any magical potential. I wonder also if squibs are the reason(or a primary reason) for muggleborns existing. Its stated that both squibs and muggleborns are rare, and if magic is genetic then a squib somewhere along the line may lead to a descendant being magic. Celoneth From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 02:47:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:47:10 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178113 Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the interview, but hey, I can live with that. Hey JKR why not Sirius and Remus or Sirius and Snape? ;) 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 "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This, by no doubt, elicited the biggest reaction of the evening with many audience members gasping upon hearing the news. So much so, it promoted Jo to say: "If I had know this would have made you so happy, I would have told you years ago."" Alla: There is some more fun stuff there too. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 02:54:46 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:54:46 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178114 Alla: > Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. > HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the > interview, but hey, I can live with that. *(snip)* > 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 Ceridwen: Neville marries Hannah Abbott and scores more... what? For DD and GG (Dumblewald? Grindeldor?), I thought there was something there when it took so long for DD to bring GG down. Very cool. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 03:06:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:06:42 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178115 Alla posted this: > 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 > > > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to > her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in > love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This, by no > doubt, elicited the biggest reaction of the evening with many > audience members gasping upon hearing the news. So much so, it > promoted Jo to say: > > > > > "If I had know this would have made you so happy, I would have told > you years ago."" Jen: AHA! It all falls into place now. Dumbledore's speeches about love, references to Gellert's golden locks (not by DD but still), why he was diverted from caring for Ariana that summer, and why it took so long for Dumbledore to cross Grindelwald when people were being killed. Also, DD was so bereft talking to Harry about Grindelwald, and it meant something to him when Harry mentioned perhaps Gellert died attempting to keep Voldemort from opening Dumbledore's grave. Was it unrequited or not? Did Dumbledore spend his life like Snape, thinking about the great love of his past? She doesn't say. I tell you what, between this and the Machiavellian/puppetmaster comment, I don't have a slot Dumbledore fits in anymore. He's so far from what I read; his story was very different from the trajectory in my mind. I thought the comparison was LV/DD, but now it seems JKR was interested in comparing and contrasting the actions of Snape and DD. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 03:16:13 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:16:13 +0800 Subject: Counting AKs (Was Re: [HPforGrownups] Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tom Riddle?) In-Reply-To: <2141676.1192823927217.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <2141676.1192823927217.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <471972FD.8010400@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178116 Lee Kaiwen > Heck, any reasonable guy would figure after going > oh-for-three perhaps AK *wasn't* the best choice; > but LV doesn't seem to have had that much imagination. Bart: > One - Baby Harry > Two - GOF > Three - DH, one, works, but Harry gets better, minor backfire. > Four - DH, two, major backfire > And wasn't there one in OOP? Was there? Of course, my POV for the above statement was BEFORE LV fired off YAAK (Yet Another Avadra Kedrava) during the final duel. After, the duel, of course, I'd admend my statement to "LV doesn't have any imagination (or anything else) at all." :-) If there was one in OotP, then my statement should read "oh-for-four". But since in the final duel LV's spell ricocheted off Harry's, I suppose in one sense it probably doesn't really much matter WHAT the spell was -- though I've always thought the whole idea of ricocheting and rebounding spells was a bit -- umm -- problematic. In any case, the ricocheting in the final duel seems to violate the laws of physics: if LV's spell went out and ricocheted directly back at him, shouldn't Harry's have done the same? Where DID Harry's spell ricochet to? And does the fact that a simple Expelliarimus was able to deflect an AK suggest the two are of equal "power" or "force"? --CJ (who confesses he is NOT a physicist) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 03:34:13 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:34:13 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178117 Alla: Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the interview, but hey, I can live with that. Hey JKR why not Sirius and Remus or Sirius and Snape? ;) 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 "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This, by no doubt, elicited the biggest reaction of the evening with many audience members gasping upon hearing the news. So much so, it promoted Jo to say: "If I had know this would have made you so happy, I would have told you years ago."" Alla: There is some more fun stuff there too. Tiffany: I had some suspicions about DD & GG being more than what was being revealed at first, but it all falls into place so well now after viewing the article. I really thought that there was more to their relationship with each other than meets the eye. However, I also felt there were some more of the "more than meets the eye" relationships also than just those two. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 03:35:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:35:47 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178118 > Jen: AHA! It all falls into place now. Dumbledore's speeches about > love, references to Gellert's golden locks (not by DD but still), why > he was diverted from caring for Ariana that summer, and why it took > so long for Dumbledore to cross Grindelwald when people were being > killed. Also, DD was so bereft talking to Harry about Grindelwald, > and it meant something to him when Harry mentioned perhaps Gellert > died attempting to keep Voldemort from opening Dumbledore's grave. > Was it unrequited or not? Did Dumbledore spend his life like Snape, > thinking about the great love of his past? Magpie: Actually, there isn't a gay couple, there's a gay man. She said Dumbledore had an *unrequited* affair with Grindenwald. So yeah, more like Snape. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 04:01:04 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:01:04 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47197D80.3050207@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178119 dumbledore11214 blessed us with this gem On 20/10/2007 10:47: > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to > her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay Well, I'd have to dispute the subject line: "There is a gay couple in canon". I'd say this is another clear case of a difference between a character in her head and the one on the page. If the character in JKR's mind is homosexual, that's fine. But there's nothing of it in the canon. --CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 04:27:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:27:23 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <47197D80.3050207@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178120 > dumbledore11214 blessed us with this gem On 20/10/2007 10:47: > > > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to > > her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay CJ wrote: > Well, I'd have to dispute the subject line: "There is a gay couple in > canon". I'd say this is another clear case of a difference between a > character in her head and the one on the page. If the character in JKR's > mind is homosexual, that's fine. But there's nothing of it in the canon. Alla: I am afraid I do not accept the dispute, LOL. What Magpie said I can accept if transcript turns out to have the *unrequited* part, although even then DD and Grindelwad can still be gays, no? I mean, I like comparison with Snape here very much. But what there is nothing of in canon? Dumbledore having sex? Dumbledore kissing, thinking of other man? There is none of that indeed, but there are all those mentions that Jen mentioned and Ceridwen which totally play out as hints in my head. And that reference by Rita to pedophilia? Oh yeah, I think this is part of the character backstory that JKR had in her mind for a long time, it seems to me. That DD was gay, not pedophile. No, I did not think it was true or predicted it, but I burned with Sirius/ Remus, so am pleased, heheh. In any event, I am certainly taking JKR interviews with more caution now, but certainly not something like this, which is IMO fact and not innterpretation, so I accept that Dumbledore was intended to be gay. Nobody has to think of him as such, but I do now. And whether there is a gay man or gay couple in canon, I am still happy. I seem to remember one of my favorite writers ever Neil Gaiman mentioning once that one of his characters in Neverwhere is gay and that he did not mention it absolutely deliberately. He did not want character to be defined by his sexual orientation, maybe JKR had same rationale in mind. JMO, Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 04:43:18 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:43:18 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178121 Alla: > > I am afraid I do not accept the dispute, LOL. What Magpie said I can > accept if transcript turns out to have the *unrequited* part, > although > even then DD and Grindelwad can still be gays, no? Magpie: You mean just that Grindenwald could be gay too? Sure, I guess so. But "unrequited love affair" in this series seems straightforwardly to say that Dumbledore liked him and Grindenwald didn't like him back that way. If they had just had a love affair I wouldn't describe it that way just because Dumbledore felt more strongly than Grindenwald. I wouldn't call Ron/Lavender unrequited, for instance. It just seems like needlessly giving the wrong idea if she meant that Grindenwald did return his attraction but just not the level of love. He requited it up to a point. Alla: > I seem to remember one of my favorite writers ever Neil Gaiman > mentioning once that one of his characters in Neverwhere is gay and > that he did not mention it absolutely deliberately. > > He did not want character to be defined by his sexual orientation, > maybe JKR had same rationale in mind. Magpie: I don't think that really applies here, just because first, he's Dumbledore. How could he only be defined by that? But more importantly, I can't see why this wouldn't be made explicit if it were a het romance. It would be a major motivation for some of Dumbledore's actions. It's one thing to leave it out if it's not relevant, but why present an important relationship as not being about that kind of love when it is? That would be important. And this world is so conservative and heteronormative that's even more reason to make it explicit, defining or not! Imo, obviously. You find time to plaster Sirius' walls with hot chicks and pair off students and adults madly, go ahead and tell us! That said, reading it I actually did personally put in DD/GG when I read it. Only I thought it was requited and they had a great, heady romance that whole summer until it ended, you know, badly. I would never have left that out if I were writing the book! It wouldn't have taken much. I'm surprised Aberforth could keep his mouth shut. -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 20 05:10:04 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:10:04 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allthecoolnamesgone" wrote: > > dying. But I can also see that they 'gave' Harry his resurrection > which also fits the mythic pattern. After all it goes back further > than Christianity but because our culture is 'Christian' that is the > theme that is most evoked. > Christianity being a Jewish sect it is hard to see how it is even possible for this mythic pattern to go farther back than the roots of Christianity. I've recently read several books about the Akkadian and Sumerian culture of ancient Mesopotamia. The patriarch of my faith came from this culture in about 1700 BC. A surprising number of the elements of Judaism and Christianity were in place at the time writing was invented. That pretty much makes it impossible to find conclusive evidence for an earlier incarnation of some of the basic Christian concepts. Christianity is hardly unique in this respect, a great deal of our "western" culture finds its roots in Mesopotamia. The Bible judges the Mesopotamians pretty harshly and I understand why. At the same time these were a touchingly devout people. It is almost as if Abraham was less the founder of a religion and more of a reformer like Martin Luther who listened to the still, small voice of his very Sumerian personal god and found not a minor deity scuttling about in the shadows of the great city gods, but the creator of the universe. If you are about my age you did not learn much about this period in school because a lot of it was still being deciphered and hadn't diffused down to the high school level. If you need something to fill a Potter sized void in your life after DH this is a fascinating historical period to study. There's even a very recently released novel set in the time period just before the invention of writing: Slaves of the Shinar by Justin Allen. In any event I don't think these themes in Harry Potter are called Christian merely because western culture is so predominantly Christian. It appears to me that these concepts were a part of what we now call Christianity from the time when it was first possible to express them in writing. It is likely that any other ancient expressions of them you might find are likewise diffused from a Mesopotamian source. Ken From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 05:46:52 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:46:52 -0000 Subject: Rowling Admits Christian Theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178123 Ken Hutchinson: Christianity being a Jewish sect it is hard to see how it is even possible for this mythic pattern to go farther back than the roots of Christianity. I've recently read several books about the Akkadian and Sumerian culture of ancient Mesopotamia. The patriarch of my faith came from this culture in about 1700 BC. A surprising number of the elements of Judaism and Christianity were in place at the time writing was invented. That pretty much makes it impossible to find conclusive evidence for an earlier incarnation of some of the basic Christian concepts. Christianity is hardly unique in this respect, a great deal of our "western" culture finds its roots in Mesopotamia. The Bible judges the Mesopotamians pretty harshly and I understand why. At the same time these were a touchingly devout people. It is almost as if Abraham was less the founder of a religion and more of a reformer like Martin Luther who listened to the still, small voice of his very Sumerian personal god and found not a minor deity scuttling about in the shadows of the great city gods, but the creator of the universe. Tiffany: I took a class last year studying the world's ancient cultures & a lot of the elements in the Christian Bible have shown up before. The flooding of the Earth to wash away evil spirits is a universal theme among a lot of ancient cultures. It's really nothing new at all because religions & cultures are world famous for borrowing ideas from older ones. Ancient Rome & Ancient Greece were a lot alike, esp. in the theater where the only difference was there was no political satire in Rome. I've heard that Potter is a Christ-like figure & the books have a lot of strong Christian elements to them. I can't see why so many folks have issues with the books; the major ideas & themes in the HP books are hardly unique to the fantasy genre at all. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 06:58:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:58:55 -0000 Subject: is there someone with a light out there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronale" wrote: > > > Thank you so much, Kay. You've saved me hours of work. > > Ronale7 > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > > > > Mike: > > > > > > Go to the "Files" Section, left side of the page in webview, and > > > then go to "Old Admin Files". In there you'll find the OotP > > > Chapter Discussion File (from the old data base table). > > > Unfortunately it looks incomplete. > > > > KathyK: > > > > It's here (and complete), too: > > > > "Files," "Structured Discussions," "OotP_Chapter_Discussions" > > > bboyminn: I had pretty good luck going to the group website and using Advanced Search. Enter 'OotP Chapter' in the Subject line and you will come up with many many hits on the subject; 59 to be exact, starting with Chapter 36 Discussion. Searching 'Chapter Discussion' will bring up 827 hit but of course that represents all chapter discussions for all books; not as selective. Searching 'Chapter Discussion' in the Subject and 'OotP' in the Message Body yields 127 links. 'Chapter' in the Subject and 'OotP' in the Body yields 200 links. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 08:54:53 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:54:53 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4719C25D.8030803@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178125 dumbledore11214 blessed us with this gem On 20/10/2007 12:27: > What Magpie said I can accept if transcript turns out to > have the *unrequited* part, although > even then DD and Grindelwad can still be gays, no? It depends on what argument we're making. To say that a homosexual DD is not inconsistent with canon is probably true. To say that he WAS homosexual based on a couple of ambiguous passages that *could* be interpreted suggestively is a very weak argument at best. By that argument, Gandalf and Frodo must've be doing the hot-n-heavies. All that time G spent cloistered away up at Bag End -- you don't seriously believe he and Frodo were just discussing the Ring and having afternoon crumpets. Or if not G/F, how about Frodo and Sam? If ever there were a homoerotic relationship in modern literature THAT's it. After all, when did Frodo ever show the slightest interest in women? Or certainly you don't believe Turin and Beleg were just good buddies? Or Merry and Pippin? Come to think of it, Tolkien is just full of homoeroticism. If that's what one's looking for, anyway. JKR's outting of DD tells us no more than that the DD of her imagination was homosexual. The DD of canon, OTOH, not so much. --CJ From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 10:37:21 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:37:21 -0000 Subject: Squib Life In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slytherin_jenn" wrote: > > Prep0strus: > > I've wondered for a bit about the place of Squibs in the WW. It > > really is the ultimate damnation to be born a Squib... but isn't there > > more that they could do? > > > > From what we've seen, career options seem to be janitor in place most > > likely to remind you of your ultimate genetic failing, and spy on The > > Boy Who Lived, which is a pretty limited field, I'd imagine. > > > > But couldn't they do more? It's hard to be a part of the Muggle world > > knowing what else is out there > > Celoneth: > I've wondered about this too. I believe in one interview JKR gave, she > said that Mrs. Figg supported herself by breeding Kneazles & > half-Kneazles - so that type of work is probably out there. Potions > seems to require some magic, and divination for humans appears to be a > skill that one is born with, and Astronomy seems to be taught in > relation to other magical subjects so I wouldn't see them having > careers in those areas. Filch seems to be a rare exception (it would > be very interesting to learn why he continues to stay at Hogwarts > given how frustrating it must be to be outdone by schoolkids) I > imagine there are few squibs that actively participate in wizard life > - its probably like Muggle-Magic marriages where the Muggle probably > still does their Muggle job but still is part of the magic family. I > think its stated that squibs don't go to Hogwarts, so probably they > attend Muggle schools and become mostly integrated into Muggle > society. That's probably the best thing, we seen in DH how hard it is > for Wizards to survive w/o wands in that society, it must be much > worse for squibs who don't have any magical potential. > > I wonder also if squibs are the reason(or a primary reason) for > muggleborns existing. Its stated that both squibs and muggleborns are > rare, and if magic is genetic then a squib somewhere along the line > may lead to a descendant being magic. > Celoneth Sue here: I think it was in Philosopher's Stone that Ron admits there's a family member who's an accountant - they don't talk about him. He is, presumably, the squib in the Weasley family and has nothing to do with them either. You couldn't get a magical job, but you could, it seems, become an accountant or whatever, and get on with your life. Or you could be a sad character like Filch and hang around the edges of a world in which you can never take part, trying to pretend you're a part of it. No wonder he's so bitter towards the students, who make more magic even in their games than he could ever do. Notice, though, that the two squibs in the series - Filch and Figg - both have magical relationships with cats. Maybe that's a squib thing, like a compensation for their lack of magic in other respects. It could be that squibs are the ancestors of Muggleborns. Or perhaps during the persecutions of the Middle Ages, witches and wizards went into hiding and married out? From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 20 11:37:52 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:37:52 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <4719C25D.8030803@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > dumbledore11214 blessed us with this gem On 20/10/2007 12:27: > > > What Magpie said I can accept if transcript turns out to > > have the *unrequited* part, although > > even then DD and Grindelwad can still be gays, no? > > It depends on what argument we're making. To say that a homosexual DD is > not inconsistent with canon is probably true. To say that he WAS > homosexual based on a couple of ambiguous passages that *could* be > interpreted suggestively is a very weak argument at best. Puts head in hands and groans. Why did we need to be told that Dumbledore is gay? Is it at all relevant to the story as written? The only point that can I think be made is that it influenced the delay in confronting and defeating Gelert. It probably also fed into Dumbledore's guilt complex over his sister's death as well. We don't get any indication in the books of how acceptable homosexuality was in the WW so it is impossible to judge whether fear of 'outting' by Gelert kept Dumbledore inactive against him. allthecoolnamesgone From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 11:50:30 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:50:30 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178128 allthecoolnamesgone: > Puts head in hands and groans. Why did we need to be told that > Dumbledore is gay? Is it at all relevant to the story as written? The > only point that can I think be made is that it influenced the delay > in confronting and defeating Gelert. It probably also fed into > Dumbledore's guilt complex over his sister's death as well. We don't > get any indication in the books of how acceptable homosexuality was > in the WW so it is impossible to judge whether fear of 'outting' by > Gelert kept Dumbledore inactive against him. Ceridwen: We didn't need to be told this. Canon is closed. It's like any other information from interviews: superfluous. Unlike other interview information, this actually sheds some light on canon for me. Dumbledore and Grindelwald had their falling out sometime in the late 1800s. After that, GG wreaked havoc without opposition. People begged DD to do something. Fifty or so years later, he did. I thought that DD having feelings for GG was the most likely reason. He would have wanted to avoid a confrontation on many levels. Being outed, if this was a big deal in the WW of the time, would only be one reason. There are all sorts of emotional issues for DD tied up in this. It's too bad she didn't actually make this canon. Interviews are secondary at best and will probably be relegated to footnotes or snippets of information in prefaces of future books. Not everyone is an obsessive footnote-reader like me. Ceridwen. From heidi at heidi8.com Sat Oct 20 13:24:10 2007 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:24:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5913e6f80710200624g230fa781v171f2ef7f0ea22ab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178129 On 10/20/07, sistermagpie wrote: > > > You mean just that Grindenwald could be gay too? Sure, I guess so. > But "unrequited love affair" in this series seems straightforwardly > to say that Dumbledore liked him and Grindenwald didn't like him back > that way. I looked over the transcript, and it seems that the "unrequited love affair" is a paraphrasing by the press. JKR said: <<*Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was.>> * To me, this doesn't mean they didn't snog or shag, and it doesn't mean that Grindlewald didn't reciprocate some degree of emotion and/or sexual interaction with Dumbledore, just that after everything with Arianna, Grindlewald's life took a different turn from Dumbledore's. I'm just really looking forward to all the fic about them! For now, Marauder's fic is a good start, and you can find it at http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/marauder/ANF01.html - heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aeshawilliams at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 14:54:59 2007 From: aeshawilliams at gmail.com (Aesha Williams) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:54:59 -0500 Subject: The Blacks, after the fall (was: Re: Harry's reasoning regarding Narcissa's lie is faulty) Message-ID: <002901c81329$33de1b40$6501a8c0@Sophie> No: HPFGUIDX 178130 Carol said: >I don't consider Narcissa to be a "good Slytherin" (unlike Andromeda, >who risked and lost a great deal supporting the anti-Voldemort side), >but she's better than the irredeemably evil Bellatrix. I imagine the >elder Malfoys slipping back into something like the life they led >before Voldemort's second rise to power, but without their former >influence. Maybe Narcissa inherited Bellatirx's wealth (assuming that >Rodolphus and Rabastan were dead). What they did all day, sitting >around like a pair of dragons on their pile of gold, we're left to >imagine. It must have been a boring and unproductive life. My turn: Your post made me think about something I hadn't really considered before. You mentioned Andromeda, the black sheep of the trio of Black sisters. Bellatrix, of course, would never have forgiven Andromeda, and probably would have gone to just as much (if not more) trouble to kill her as Tonks. I'm curious what happened after everything. Narcissa seems to realize there are hings more important than doing the Dark Lord's bidding. I wonder if she ever spoke to Andromeda again, or if she never really had a change of heart about the pure-blood thing - was it just her son she wanted to save? I wonder about the dynamic between the Weasley, Malfoy, and Tonks families, knowing that Bellatrix was murdered by Molly Weasley. If Narcissa never came around and asked her older sister's forgiveness, did Draco?.... In the Epilogue, when he and Harry acknowledge one another, I feel more that Draco feels shame more than a separation from Harry & Ron because of discordant beliefs about the superiority of purebloods. Aesha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 15:24:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:24:36 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <5913e6f80710200624g230fa781v171f2ef7f0ea22ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178131 Heidi: > I looked over the transcript, and it seems that the "unrequited love affair" > is a paraphrasing by the press. JKR said: > > <<*Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his > horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was.>> > * > To me, this doesn't mean they didn't snog or shag, and it doesn't mean that > Grindlewald didn't reciprocate some degree of emotion and/or sexual > interaction with Dumbledore, just that after everything with Arianna, > Grindlewald's life took a different turn from Dumbledore's. Magpie: Ah, yes that is a paraphrase. They could easily have had an affair. It's still not a gay couple in canon any more than Neville/Hannah is a couple in canon, but she didn't specifically say this particular romance in her head was unrequited. -m From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 15:56:51 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:56:51 -0000 Subject: ADMIN - Member Feedback Requested Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178133 Phlytie Elf wandered into the T-Bay Inn, sat up at the bar and asked for a Butterbeer. Faith, sitting a few stools over, looked at the Elf and sensed something wrong. "Why the long face, Phlytie?" "Tis genetic, Miss. All us elvses have long faces." "No Phlytie, you are looking a little low." "Pardon, Miss, but us elvses are all smaller than you humans. Meaning no disrespect, but I is thinking that was well known." "Let me try again, is there something bothering you, Phlytie?" "Oh, I is so sorry. Phlytie is not understanding, most times people is not caring what us elvses is feeling." Phlytie is cheered and a little embarrassed by Faith's concern, but plows on. "Not exactly bothering, but us elvses is wondering how to get the Membership to tell us what they think of the List. That is, we'd be most pleased if we could get some Feedback from our masters on the State of the List." Faith looks quizzically at Phlytie for a moment, then asks, "Why don't you just ask them?" "Pardon again, Miss, but is not being so easy. The List is reserved for canon discussion only. What can we do?" "Phlytie, don't you have someplace where you can get *Feedback*? I'm sure the members would give you *Feedback* if you have a place for *Feedback*." "Is Miss trying to tell Phlytie something?" "Oh for Heaven's Sake, Phlytie! You have a Feedback List for this exact purpose!" Phlytie looks confused for a spell, but slowly a grin crosses his face. "Oh, Thank you, Miss. That is being a wonderful idea." "And you call yourselves Moderators?!" "Now Miss, if you please, there's no need to get short with us." Faith, under her breath, mumbles, "Apparently, one must get short to get down to your level." "Pardon, Miss" "I said I wouldn't think of it. Apparently being short is your purview. Genetic, isn't it?" "Why yes, Miss. Thankee kindly for noticing." Phlytie jumps down from his barstool and happily bounds out the door to go tell his fellow elves of this wonderful idea. ******************************************************* List members, please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ and tell us your opinion on the State of the List. There you will find a thread started by the List Elves. Please don't let Faith's hard work be in vain. If you are not a member at Feedback, please go to the same site and sign up. Vision impaired members that need an invitation sent, please contact the elves at: HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (without the space) Please do not respond to this ADMIN - unless you've got a better T-Bay, or want to continue in that vein. We're not kidding about the Main List being for canon discussion. ;-) Your List Elves From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 20 16:28:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:28:41 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178134 > > Alla: > > Oh but you see there is not to me. All that Harry does, I totally > expected from him at the end of the story when he has all the > information. > > I already saw him saving Peter, that pretty much told me that push > comes to shove Harry can do something extraordinary and more than > ordinary person. Pippin: Harry did not want to save Peter. He wanted to keep Sirius and Lupin from becoming murderers. He said he was okay with Peter being turned over to the dementors. Alla: > And when Harry is Christlike figure? ( Sorry, do not mean to offend > anybody, but that is how I perceive it) That is what Christ like > figures do IMO - they offer protection to anybody and see good in > everybody. > As to what changed Harry even more? I say his death experience, > nothing more than that IMO. Pippin: But that doesn't work, because his decision to save everybody had to have been made before he "died" although, as when he faked doping Ron's pumpkin juice, the narration does not let us in on it until afterwards. Anyway, although I don't know if Jesus is on record as to whether it's okay to let murderers kill another, but he stopped people from executing the woman taken in adultery, despite warning that her would be executioners were just as bad as she was. I wouldn't think we are supposed to see Harry as someone who could cast the first stone. > > Pippin: > > It seems to me that Snape is Harry's Ariana, the death he > > would have tried to prevent if he had been as decent > > a person as he thought he was. After that realization, IMO, > > it's no longer enough for him to feel that he's a decent person > > in his heart and do what his heart tells him. He has to > > consciously try to be good. > > > Alla: > > Wow. Sorry, not buying. Pippin: See, there's this pattern in canon of people thinking that they can approve of killing because it's only inferior, unsympathetic people who are going to be killed. And then they find out that it doesn't work like that, and it changes everything. It isn't only Dumbledore and Ariana, but also Snape and Lily, and Regulus and Kreacher. It seems to me a similar transformation took place in Harry, although in his case any sympathy for Snape would not have been kindled until after Snape was dead. But still he would have realized his mistake, just as Dumbledore and Snape did, and that's why he chose to protect everyone from Voldemort, not just his friends, IMO. In a fairy story, according to Bettelheim, the morality of the hero's actions is shown by their success. If Harry had not protected Narcissa from Voldemort's magic, she wouldn't have been able to get away with lying to the Dark Lord, and Harry's ruse would have been discovered. That shows, IMO, that Harry did the right thing by choosing to protect everyone. If it was the right thing then, how could it not have been right earlier? And why would Harry not recognize this? A Harry who learned from his mistakes the way Dumbledore and Snape did is more real to me than one who has saintliness bestowed on him as a reward for his courage, especially since Snape himself was very brave and it certainly didn't make a saint out of him! But that doesn't make the pure-and-uncomplicated Harry reading wrong, I'm just showing that there's room for another way to look at it. Pippin From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 08:44:45 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:44:45 +0200 Subject: where can I find all the questions +answers? Message-ID: <000301c812f5$78aed3b0$914377d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178135 Hi, Where can I find a list of all the questions +answers of the whole "open book tour" (15 til 19 oktober)? If I can compare this list with my own questionnaire I sent on 15 october to this yahoogroup, I can delete the answered ones off the list. Thanks by advance! Best, Katty From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 20 16:51:53 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:51:53 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178136 . > > Ceridwen: > We didn't need to be told this. Canon is closed. It's like any other > information from interviews: superfluous. Pippin: Who decides whether the canon is closed or not? Even if the encyclopedia never appears, we're still going to be getting information from interviews and the website. Post-DH we've had wizard of the month cards for Dumbledore and Harry, and I think we can expect them for Ron and Hermione (and Snape too, pretty please!) I would say the canon of the novels is closed, but the canon of the Potterverse is still open. Ceridwen: > It's too bad she didn't actually make this canon. Interviews are > secondary at best and will probably be relegated to footnotes or > snippets of information in prefaces of future books. Not everyone is > an obsessive footnote-reader like me. Pippin: How would it have fit into the story? It would be inappropriate for a Headmaster to discuss his love affairs with a student, especially one who was fond of him. After death, as I've said before, it wouldn't fit into the concept of an afterlife where there is no carnal love. The only place it could fit is in Rita Skeeter's book, but if the WW is that happy place where there's nothing scandalous about a monogamous relationship between consenting adults, then she'd have had nothing to write about. She certainly wouldn't have wanted to suggest that Dumbledore had fallen in love -- it would have made him far too human and sympathetic. Pippin who did wonder a bit about what DD and GG were up to visiting one another in the middle of the night From tangible_magic at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 09:16:16 2007 From: tangible_magic at hotmail.com (tangible_magic) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:16:16 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Maybe Draco is Gay Too? In-Reply-To: <4719C25D.8030803@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178137 Avidly Obsessive Harry/Draco shipper here: Given JKR announcing that DD is gay, I think it is entirely likely that Draco is gay - and in love with Harry. That's why he hates him. Hates himself - imagine the prejudice against homosexualilty in a pure-blood family and the pressure to produce an heir. Though these wondeful lines can be otherwise explained away, I do think they add weight to my arguement. <2 DH quotes> "Don't kill him! DON'T KILL HIM!" "Draco holding onto Harry so tightly it hurt?" (Harry is literally Draco's knight in shining armour. *big happy sigh*) The fight after the Quidditch match? (5th book I think) - unresolved sexual tension, anyone? (Being married + child doesn't mean he isn't gay, btw. But the epilogue doesn't exist IMO ;) ) Anyone agree? Or am I on a limb? Am i seeing the world through Harry/Draco-coloured glasses? tangible_magic From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 15:54:21 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:54:21 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178138 > Alla: > > Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. > > HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the > > interview, but hey, I can live with that. > *(snip)* > > 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 > > Ceridwen: > Neville marries Hannah Abbott and scores more... what? > > For DD and GG (Dumblewald? Grindeldor?), I thought there was something > there when it took so long for DD to bring GG down. Very cool. > > > Gary B. -- My apologies in advance to those thrilled by this 'news'. This sort of post-canon Rowling patter is exactly why I never read any of her interviews intending to gain insight into her writings. I believe in the school if it is not in the black words on the page of one of the seven books, it "ain't true Joe" (okay, I reversed the old baseball Shoeless Joe cliche here). She wants to thrill and lecture. I guess that she was disappointed that so many failed to 'see' this truth about DD so she had to help us realize it. Perhaps her efforts are designed to overturn the old principle that an author loses control of her message once the book is published. Plus it provides more fire to the debate and more book sales since DH has nearly fallen off the top ten best seller lists. Is there more manipulative DD in JKR than Hermione Granger? Gary B. -- A great fan of the books themselves but wonders about the clever author. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 17:30:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:30:03 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178139 > Pippin: > Harry did not want to save Peter. He wanted to keep Sirius and > Lupin from becoming murderers. He said he was okay with > Peter being turned over to the dementors. Alla: Sure, yes, I meant only to save him from immediate death. > Alla: > > And when Harry is Christlike figure? ( Sorry, do not mean to offend > > anybody, but that is how I perceive it) That is what Christ like > > figures do IMO - they offer protection to anybody and see good in > > everybody. > > > As to what changed Harry even more? I say his death experience, > > nothing more than that IMO. > > Pippin: > But that doesn't work, because his decision to save everybody had > to have been made before he "died" although, as when he faked > doping Ron's pumpkin juice, the narration does not let us in on it > until afterwards. Alla: I meant the protection thing that worked for everybody. Pippin: > I wouldn't think we are supposed to see Harry as someone who > could cast the first stone. Alla: Yes, exactly and I do not remember Harry trying to kill Snape and I also said that this is what I would not be okay with. >> Pippin: > See, there's this pattern in canon of people thinking that they > can approve of killing because it's only inferior, unsympathetic > people who are going to be killed. And then they find out that > it doesn't work like that, and it changes everything. > > It isn't only Dumbledore and Ariana, but also Snape and Lily, > and Regulus and Kreacher. > > It seems to me a similar transformation took place in Harry, > although in his case any sympathy for Snape would not have > been kindled until after Snape was dead. But still he would > have realized his mistake, just as Dumbledore and Snape did, > and that's why he chose to protect everyone from Voldemort, > not just his friends, IMO. Alla: Pippin, approve of killing to me is very different from not interfering when one DE is killing another. I do not know if Zara talked herself into it, but she certainly talked me into Harry staying because he was consciously or not wanting to help dying man. That is so much more than I would ever expected from him. Sorry for being a parrot, but I would never want or expect him to start Voldemort's fighting to save Snape. Medical help, sure, but not fighting. Pippin: > A Harry who learned from his mistakes the way Dumbledore > and Snape did is more real to me than one who has saintliness > bestowed on him as a reward for his courage, especially since > Snape himself was very brave and it certainly didn't make a > saint out of him! Alla: Yes, I understand. I think Harry made plenty of mistakes in book 7, IMO this is not one of them. To me Harry who would suddenly forget what Snape did to him and other people and rushed in the battle to save his life and limb would be not real. To each their own, really. Pippin: > But that doesn't make the pure-and-uncomplicated Harry > reading wrong, I'm just showing that there's room for another > way to look at it. > Alla: Eh, thanks, I guess for thinking that my reading is not wrong. Just to be asbolutely clear - my reading is not pure and uncomplicated. My reading is Harry who is not going to suddenly save the life of another DE risking his life for that. Nope, not pure and uncomplicated. My Harry though is the one who would still stay for the last request of the man who tormented him in school and who helped make him an orphan and who killed Dumbledore in front of his very eyes. My Harry is the one who would still stay and honor his last request even though I think he had every right to say - thank goodness Snape that you are dead. Well, I guess my Harry is pure enough, but not Saintly to start battling Voldemort for Snape. JMO, Alla From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 17:48:23 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:48:23 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178140 Pippin: Who decides whether the canon is closed or not? Even if the encyclopedia never appears, we're still going to be getting information from interviews and the website. Post-DH we've had wizard of the month cards for Dumbledore and Harry, and I think we can expect them for Ron and Hermione (and Snape too, pretty please!) I would say the canon of the novels is closed, but the canon of the Potterverse is still open. Tiffany: I don't think the canon is closed at all, true the canon of the written word of JKR is closed, but the canon of the Potterverse is far from closed. There's gonna be flood of post-DH information to appear, but JKR's interviews are the next best thing to the actual books themselves. I think that the WW, Hogwarts, & Potterverse will be discussed for eons even though the actual canonical word of JKR is finished. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 17:58:18 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:58:18 -0000 Subject: Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > If Harry had not protected Narcissa from Voldemort's magic, > she wouldn't have been able to get away with lying to the > Dark Lord, and Harry's ruse would have been discovered. > That shows, IMO, that Harry did the right thing by > choosing to protect everyone. If it was the right thing then, > how could it not have been right earlier? And why would > Harry not recognize this? > > A Harry who learned from his mistakes the way Dumbledore > and Snape did is more real to me than one who has saintliness > bestowed on him as a reward for his courage, especially since > Snape himself was very brave and it certainly didn't make a > saint out of him! > > But that doesn't make the pure-and-uncomplicated Harry > reading wrong, I'm just showing that there's room for another > way to look at it. Montavilla47: When you put things like that, Pippin, it makes so much sense to me. But that is such a subtle reading--it seems to me that you can only get there by picking at clues that are buried under a lot of extraneous material. That's not to say that you're wrong. I don't think that you are. I just think that, if that's the message we *ought* to that, that it's far too subtle. Unless, JKR is expecting us to go on a similar (although different) quest from Harry's. We're supposed to know about the pure-hearted Harry, but not covet that image? And, instead, continue with the original quest for tolerance and inclusion, thus becoming the Master of Harry Potter? Yeah, I'm beginning to sympathize with Harry's frustration towards Dumbledore on a whole new level... Montavilla47 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 20 17:59:09 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:59:09 -0000 Subject: Things not overtly mentioned in canon. (was: I am so happy.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. > HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the > interview, but hey, I can live with that. Geoff: I can also live with that piece of news, it doesn't unsettle me. It just goes in with a number of things which are not mentioned and have been discussed on the group, because they are not relevant to the story. For example, we had a discussion on chapels quite recently and talked about the apparent lack of worship despite the fact that many schools in the UK have (or, in some cases, had) such an activity. As some members will know, as an evangelical Christian, I've written quite often about Christianty in the Potterverse but I never thought about this aspect in any detail owing to the state of real world communal religious activity in UK schools. I've light-heartedly remarked in the past that we don't hear about Harry going for a bath or even to the toilet! And have we heard much about Professor Sinistra and Astronomy lessons? Why? Because these matters are not part of the thrust of the story. If you were to ask me about my time at grammar school, I could tell you a lot but probably wouldn't think of some of the items above as being important. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 18:54:47 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:54:47 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Well it sounds that there is a gay couple in canon after all. > HAHAHAHAHHA. The most unexpected one, I say and told in the > interview, but hey, I can live with that. > > ... > > > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to > her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in > love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This, by no > doubt, elicited the biggest reaction of the evening with many > audience members gasping upon hearing the news. So much so, it > promoted Jo to say: > > > > > "If I had know this would have made you so happy, I would have told > you years ago."" > > > > Alla: > > There is some more fun stuff there too. > bboyminn: The fill transcript is up now at - http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more Two things struck me about this revelation - First, the reaction of the audience. As JKR spoke there was laughter but it seemed to be positive laughter rather than ridicule. Next the audience reaction was characterize as - "This elicited a huge reaction and prolonged ovation." You know that if there were any gay or questioning kids in the audience, that had to make them feel good; that this audience would, in a sense, 'cheer' the idea that Dumbledore was gay. Very heartwarming to me. Next, I feel very sad for Dumbledore. That event seems to have scarred him deeply. We don't really know the details of his intimate life, but he seems to have kept somewhat to himself in terms of close friendships, and after that dedicated himself to the school. And in the end, while he died greatly admired, he doesn't seem to have died loved in the way that we all want to be loved. That also touches me deeply. Still, we know that Dumbledore had at least one good friend and admirer in Elphias Doge, perhaps in their long lives they turned to each other for comfort at times. Still though, while a rich and rewarding life, I see Dumbledore as having a very lonely life, and that is sad. Steve/bboyminn From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Oct 20 19:04:21 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:04:21 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178144 Yippie! The only letter I EVER wrote to an author was a three page one pleading with J.K. Rowling to include a lesbian, gay or bisexual character. (The term "homosexual" by the way is considered offensive by most lesbians and gay men, and I wonder why some people use it so persisitently. I know some people are unaware that it's offensive...I guess that must be the reason.) The transcript does NOT say "unrequited love"..it says Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald....Period. I wonder why it disturbs some people SO much to think that Dumbledore might have made love with Gellert Grindelvald....when it doesn't seem to disturb anyone about Tonks and Lupin? Hmmmmmm... I applaud J.K. Rowling - the rest of the transcript talks about how the whole book is about tolerance, and how she thinks that that's why SOME people don't like the books..... By the way, who decided that interviews are not canon? If they aren't, they shouldn't be being discussed on this list, right? What if she writes it down and publishes it -- does it get to be canon then? What about the encyclopedia. And bravo to all the fans at Carnegie Hall who gave an ovation to J.K.R's announcement -- long live tolerance. And how amazing -- not just a minor character either -- but the greatest wizard in the world. Happy, happy, happy. Susan in California From wynnleaf at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 19:12:26 2007 From: wynnleaf at yahoo.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:12:26 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178145 > Ceridwen: > We didn't need to be told this. Canon is closed. It's like any other > information from interviews: superfluous. > > Unlike other interview information, this actually sheds some light on > canon for me. Dumbledore and Grindelwald had their falling out > sometime in the late 1800s. After that, GG wreaked havoc without > opposition. People begged DD to do something. Fifty or so years > later, he did. I thought that DD having feelings for GG was the most > likely reason. He would have wanted to avoid a confrontation on many > levels. Being outed, if this was a big deal in the WW of the time, > would only be one reason. There are all sorts of emotional issues for > DD tied up in this. > > It's too bad she didn't actually make this canon. Interviews are > secondary at best and will probably be relegated to footnotes or > snippets of information in prefaces of future books. Not everyone is > an obsessive footnote-reader like me. > > Ceridwen. > I completely agree. If the books survive and people are reading them decades or even longer from now, what is anyone to expect? That people will read with some huge "The Annotated Potter" collection, looking up all of JKR's explanations and often contradictory comments from old interviews" along the way? Of course not. Even if such a book someday exists, it will be the rare new reader who would use it. If JKR felt readers needed to know something, she should have explained it in the books. Dumbledore's relationship with Grendelwald *would* be newsworthy information for the Prophet, regardless of the Wizarding World's views on homosexuality. Good grief, Grendelwald became an evil Dark Lord! Of *course* it would be important if Dumbledore had more than just a friendly relationship with him. If JKR chose to -- rather unrealistically -- have Rita not print anything implying such a relationship between Dumbledore and Grendelwald, yet tell us later in interviews that such a relationship existed, I personally think JKR has reached the point of augmenting her novels to the extent that it's harming rather than helping. Besides, I just don't think it's a good idea to finish out the series, allow readers to read and process the books, and then start dropping information that forces readers to reassess main characters, their actions, decisions, etc. If it was that important, she could have taken some more time over the last book and included it, perhaps along the way completing the job of editing which was so poorly done as well. wynnleaf, who is starting to wonder if JKR will, like George Lucas, go on about so many extraneous "facts" that readers don't need to hear, that she'll completely ruin any suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy the story. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 19:53:29 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:53:29 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178146 Pippin: > How would it have fit into the story? *(snip)* > The only place it could fit is in Rita Skeeter's book, but if the > WW is that happy place where there's nothing scandalous about a > monogamous relationship between consenting adults, then she'd > have had nothing to write about. She certainly wouldn't have wanted to > suggest that Dumbledore had fallen in love -- it would have made > him far too human and sympathetic. Ceridwen: It could fit into Rita Skeeter's book or excerpts in the paper, or it could have been blabbed by a bigmouth at the Weasley wedding, someone like Auntie Muriel. She seems to have remembered Ariana's funeral and the fight between Albus and Aberforth; she could have blurted out something about the way he'd just adored that awful nephew of Bathilda's. If I recall right, Auntie Muriel is presented as being a bit younger than the Dumbledores, but she obviously had her sources. Her mother was probably as big a busybody as she was. We don't know what the WW thinks of relationships outside of marriage. If Ron carrying on to Ginny about snogging Dean in HBP, or the Daily Prophet making a big deal out of Hermione's supposed attachments to the two champions in GoF are anything to go on, we can guess, and it doesn't seem like the WW is nearly as progressive as fandom would like to think. I would put a gay relationship outside of marriage, given what I see in the books. DD and GG, specifically, obviously weren't married. That would be another point for someone, Rita Skeeter, Auntie Muriel, anyone, to bring up: the Headmaster of the school having had an illicit relationship - is he the sort of person we want teaching our children? What might he be encouraging up there? And the time he spends alone with Harry Potter... *shocked face* That could have drummed up some sympathy for DD when he was otherwise not sympathetic. Something like this could even have been thrown into the OotP storyline of the Ministry trashing both Harry and DD. There are ways it could have been done, or ways to make the suggestions more obvious. I don't think interviews are canon. I wouldn't put the encyclopedia, if it ever happens, into the septology. If students study the phenomenon a hundred years from now, the only place you would find Rowling's comments would be in footnotes and prefaces, or in annotated cites in the back of the books. Your mileage may vary. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 20 21:04:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:04:48 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178147 > > Ceridwen: > That would be another point for someone, Rita Skeeter, Auntie Muriel, > anyone, to bring up: the Headmaster of the school having had an > illicit relationship - is he the sort of person we want teaching our > children? What might he be encouraging up there? And the time he > spends alone with Harry Potter... *shocked face* That could have > drummed up some sympathy for DD when he was otherwise not > sympathetic. Something like this could even have been thrown into > the OotP storyline of the Ministry trashing both Harry and DD. Pippin: Um, that is in the book. "I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go." --DH ch 2 Of course Harry didn't read the chapter on DD and himself. But would you really have wanted Harry to find out about DD's orientation in that context? IMO, it is the same issue that comes up with Hogwarts being a multi-faith school, or the state of women's rights in the Potterverse: obviously Rowling wants the imaginary underclasses of her world to be the ones we care about, and that necessitates acceptance for the underclasses of our world, but leads to the question, what does acceptance look like? And what do we really want in a fantasy world, acceptance, or a mirror of our particular struggle? Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 20 21:07:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:07:00 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178148 Susan: > Yippie! > > The only letter I EVER wrote to an author was a three page one > pleading with J.K. Rowling to include a lesbian, gay or bisexual > character. (The term "homosexual" by the way is considered offensive > by most lesbians and gay men, and I wonder why some people use it so > persisitently. I know some people are unaware that it's offensive...I > guess that must be the reason.) > > The transcript does NOT say "unrequited love"..it says Dumbledore > fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald....Period. Magpie: This is interesting just in how it shows how opposite reactions can be. When I read you say you pleaded with her to put in a lesbian, gay or bisexual character my instinctual response was--sorry you didn't get your wish. Because the only references to...same sex romantic love? Is that better?--are three negative comments that are intended to cut down other people. And lots of heteronormative marriage and babies. Saying the Dumbledore was gay in an interview is certainly fine with me--I had mentally imagined this ship as canon to begin with (and you're right, she just said he was "in love with him" and didn't say one way or the other whether they had an affair or didn't, I was reading an article that put its own spin on it)--but I consider canon what's in the actual story in the books and that's it. There's lots of romances that influence the plot in HP that we hear about, why keep this one a secret? We don't need to know that Dumbledore was in love with GG for the story to make sense--the book gives us other things that are explicitly brought up that explain everything. If that's part of his motivation I really don't get why it wasn't in there. It seems like if it were a straight romance it'd be in there. Susan:> > I wonder why it disturbs some people SO much to think that Dumbledore > might have made love with Gellert Grindelvald....when it doesn't seem > to disturb anyone about Tonks and Lupin? Hmmmmmm... Magpie: Not sure--who's disturbed by the idea they might have had sex? I would guess it was because Grindenwald was Hitler and having sex with Hitler is more disturbing than having sex with a good person who's can change her hair color or a good person who is a werewolf? Susan: > > I applaud J.K. Rowling - the rest of the transcript talks about how > the whole book is about tolerance, and how she thinks that that's why > SOME people don't like the books..... Magpie: LOL! She actually said that? Wow. Yeah, people who don't like the books just can't take those tough lessons on tolerance contained therein. If you don't like the books you're probably anto-tolerance. Susan: > > By the way, who decided that interviews are not canon? If they > aren't, they shouldn't be being discussed on this list, right? What > if she writes it down and publishes it -- does it get to be canon > then? What about the encyclopedia. Magpie: Well, I've decided it, for myself; I guess everybody has to do what makes sense to them personally. That's the way I am about all books, pretty much. The story is the story. I rarely look up author interviews when reading a book. If the author clarifies something and I happen to read it and it makes sense to me I'll incorporate it--I already pretty much considered Dumbledore/Grindenwald canon so that's not hard for me to accept, but Neville marrying Hannah? Ron having one job or another? Those are random things she said in an interview. Not in the book=not canon. If somebody argued with me that Dumbledore *wasn't* in love with Grindenwald I'd have to say their view is perfectly possible given canon because for some reason that romance was hidden as motivation in ways other romances were not. -m From valerie at calithwain.com Sat Oct 20 20:43:14 2007 From: valerie at calithwain.com (Valerie Frankel) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:43:14 -0000 Subject: Things not overtly mentioned in canon. (was: I am so happy.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178149 I think all the extra info that never made it into the books is interesting but a little perplexing-- there's the books, which we love, and there are these random facts with so little proof or linkage in the text that they feel like fanfic. As far as Dumbledore's closet, I did find it interesting back when I was reading that while he "fathers" Harry, and even Snape and James and Draco a bit, we see no evidence of a wife/old girlfriend/child in D's past. His closest relationships (and, granted, most major HP characters) seem to be male. It adds a level of complexity and depth that Dumbledore isn't just destroying his best friend to end the wizarding world's side of WWII, but someone with a deeper relationship-- in a series this caught up in the meaning and consequences of love, I think it does add something to find out how Dumbledore's love affected him...on the other hand, we don't find out much, do we? It's rather a cheat that there's no allusion to any of this within the series. Valerie Frankel author of Henry Potty and the Pet Rock An Unauthorized Harry Potter Parody From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 21:57:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:57:58 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178150 > Pippin: > How would it have fit into the story? It would be inappropriate for a > Headmaster to discuss his love affairs with a student, especially one > who was fond of him. After death, as I've said before, it wouldn't > fit into the concept of an afterlife where there is no > carnal love. zgirnius: It would have fit neatly into "King's Cross", at the point where Dumbledore is explaining his reasons for not acting against Grindelwald for all those years. Perhaps it was not all about fearing to know who killed Ariana? From ben.mcguinnessngatai at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 22:19:00 2007 From: ben.mcguinnessngatai at yahoo.com (Ben McGuinness Ngatai) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <847037.67246.qm@web44804.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178151 Ben: Hey I'm a newcomer to this website, the discussions seem really intense. I was wondering where the article that explains about Dumbledore's sexuality? Just as a note; it seems that Dumbledore has a definite gay flair, especially at the Christmas Dinner in POA, he swaps willingly for a flowery bonnet. Also for in HBP he explains about his appreciation for knitting patterns or something along those lines. Elfy note: The transcript at Leaky is: http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Sat Oct 20 22:59:14 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:59:14 -0000 Subject: JKR Admits Christian Theme/Squib Life/Things Not Overtly Mentioned In Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178152 Wow, all of a sudden there's several interesting threads all at once. Better get cracking, then. To begin: with regard to the series' Christian themes, allthecoolnamesgone wrote in message 178109: > It was fairly explicit all along if you read the signs. I was > firmly convinced that Harry was going to die from OOTP onwards. In > fact I still feel in some ways that the Deathly Hallows were > her 'get out of jail free card' to enable the sacrificial death > without him actually dying. Ann: Pre-DH, I thought Harry and Voldemort were both going to go throught the Veil and only Harry would come back. (Stop giggling at the back!) But I wouldn't have guessed this from any earlier books. A general question, then: when did listies first realise the explicit Christian themes? Obviously, there was always a heavy emphasis on tolerance and anti-bigotry, but that's hardly a purely Christian idea. What about the end of CoS? (Which I myself read as gleefully, almost indecently Freudian - but I am just the one reader, after all.) In message 178111, Adam/prep0strous wondered about Squibs, saying: > I've wondered for a bit about the place of Squibs in the WW. > [snip] It's hard to be a part of the Muggle world knowing what > else is out there (I wonder how many Squibs have asked for memory > modification and went on to live perfectly normal Muggle lives.), > but a career in Muggle relations might be good. Ambassador to the > muggle world isn't a great job, but it's not too bad. Ann: As a group, Squibs fascinate me, like everyone on the borders of the Wizarding World. I hadn't thought of self-inflicted Memory Charms, though, and I suspect that not too many people have asked for them. It would, after all, require permanent separation from all of one's relatives. Muggle-borns have the opposite problem - they must live in a world that none of their relatives can ever become part of. Maybe that's a minor reason why Hogwarts is a boarding school: to "tempt" them away from their families. I don't see many people leaving Hogwarts and living in the Muggle world - for one thing, they're completely without Muggle qualifications. And there's the fact that they would find it difficult at best to form close relationships (including romantic ones, of course) with people unaware of the WW, and that all these people would be incapable of something even a magical child can do. (This, I'm sure, is the major influence on wizards' attitudes to muggles, even nice ones.) And then consider being a long-lived wizard and outliving so many of your Muggle relations. I'm sure entering the Wizarding World is pretty much a one- way street. There are also Muggle werewolves and their families, wizards who chose to leave the WW, and most interestingly, those who make a living importing MW items - not just radios, but also, for instance, books, foreign foods, and so on. Perhaps they even run Muggle World guided tours. Now that's something I'm sure Arthur Weasley's been banned from... In message 178142, Geoff said: > I've written quite often about Christianty in the Potterverse but I > never thought about this aspect in any detail owing to the state of > real world communal religious activity in UK schools. > > I've light-heartedly remarked in the past that we don't hear about > Harry going for a bath or even to the toilet! Ann: But we hear about Harry doing both! He opens the Egg in the prefects' bathroom in GoF, and where do the Trio brew that Polyjuice Potion in CoS if not Myrtle's toilet? Yes, I know they're important to the plot. So is Wizarding World religion. The series villain has split his soul to make himself impossible to kill, and it works; and there are ghosts, paintings, the Veil in the Department of Mysteries, ways of ensuring eternal life - unicorn blood even comes with its own karmic payback - and the condition of Harry's soul is also important. Yet JKR has given us no indication of how this has affected Wizarding World religions, what souls, paintings or ghosts really *are*, or anything at all about the afterlife. JKR seems as incurious as Harry about what the afterlife is realy like, and she's denying us basic information about the series' vital premises. That's the problem with the "it's not relevant" argument, IMO. (Tackling racism via the pureblood/muggleborn issue, on the other hand, I think is a very good use of the wizarding world's differing culture, as it by definition excludes and/or offends nobody, and fits perfectly into the WW as a whole.) My own view on Wizarding religion is that it began as Catholicism, obviously, but has now drifted away from strict orthodoxy and has been influenced by things like ghosts, that the wider world is unaware of, and that this is why Hallowe'en is so important. And conversely, that it's been pretty much unaffected by Protestantism. I bet one of the highlights of the summer holidays is the Feast of St. John Barleycorn. :) But I think I'm on stronger ground when I say that I don't think the modern Muggle world has influenced the WW much at all. BTW, there's an interesting, pre-OotP, thread on religion at Hogwarts here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34239.) Ann From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 22:59:04 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:59:04 -0000 Subject: Other New News Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178153 So, JKR said a little bit more than just the Dumbledore thing, including: "JKR: To take Remus first, Remus was unemployable. Poor Lupin, prior to Dumbledore taking him in, lead a really impoverished life because no one wanted to employ a werewolf. The other three were full-time members of the Order of the Phoenix. If you remember when Lily, James and co. were at school, the first war was raging. It never reached the heights that the second war reached, because the Ministry was never infiltrated to that extend but it was a very bad time, the same disappearances, the same deaths. So that's what they did, they left school. James has gold, enough to support Sirius and Lily. So I suppose they lived foff a private income. But they were full-time fighters, that's what they did, until Lily fell pregnant with Harry. So then they went into hiding." And I'm wondering if it's just a slip of the tongue, or how it came out at first, but... why would James support Sirius, but not Lupin? Lupin was impoverished, but James and Lily and Sirius all got to live off of James' gold? It makes me wonder something that wasn't answered - what was Peter doing? Doesn't sound like he'd be a 'full-time fighter'... which means he might be the only Marauder with a job. That, or impoverished, or living off the Potter gold as well? Very strange. Also, why would the Potters and Sirius be in the Order at any time that Lupin wasn't? Dumbledore started and ran the Order, didn't he? So there shouldn't have been a lag between the others becoming a member and him becoming a member. It's very strange to me. Also seems to imply a paucity of imagination... it's nice how many people simply get to be rich and live that way, but it's more interesting to give the characters careers. There's no reason someone couldn't be in the order and also have a real job - in fact, most of the Order members we meet DO - professor, caretaker, auror, ministry official,... thief. Sometimes it really feels like JKR doesn't even want to bother coming up with something. She says she has so much in her head not in the books, but it was her plan that none of the Marauders even had jobs they used as their front? Weird. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Oct 20 23:49:59 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:49:59 +1300 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. Message-ID: <001501c81373$ed1c22b0$9664a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 178154 I really wish I hadn't read this bit. And I think it's time to bid the group farewell. The books were great whilst they lasted but JKR is pruning her avarice colours much too much for my liking, time and effort. If you're on this list JKR, get over it, get over yourself, get over the preaching especially when your messages are all so skewed. Angel Lima Over n out... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 00:05:23 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:05:23 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: Adam (Prep0strus): > So, JKR said a little bit more than just the Dumbledore thing, including: > > "JKR: To take Remus first, Remus was unemployable. Poor Lupin, prior > to Dumbledore taking him in, lead a really impoverished life because > no one wanted to employ a werewolf. The other three were full-time > members of the Order of the Phoenix. If you remember when Lily, James > and co. were at school, the first war was raging. It never reached the > heights that the second war reached, because the Ministry was never > infiltrated to that extend but it was a very bad time, the same > disappearances, the same deaths. So that's what they did, they left > school. James has gold, enough to support Sirius and Lily. So I > suppose they lived foff a private income. But they were full-time > fighters, that's what they did, until Lily fell pregnant with Harry. > So then they went into hiding." > > And I'm wondering if it's just a slip of the tongue, or how it came > out at first, but... why would James support Sirius, but not Lupin? > Lupin was impoverished, but James and Lily and Sirius all got to live > off of James' gold? It makes me wonder something that wasn't answered > - what was Peter doing? Doesn't sound like he'd be a 'full-time > fighter'... which means he might be the only Marauder with a job. > That, or impoverished, or living off the Potter gold as well? Very > strange. Montavilla47: LOL. That Lupin, he just never wins, does he? Sirius had his own gold, from his uncle Alphard. Plus, what was keeping Sirius from getting a job? So, James splurged to get Sirius a motorcyle and Lupin was sewing patches on the elbows of his robes. Couldn't Dumbledore have hired him as an Assistant- Assisant Gamekeeper if it was that bad? Did he have *no* job experience before getting the D.A.D.A. job? No wonder Snape was so ticked off. Or did Lupin get his experience doing all the dangerous stuff for the Order? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 00:06:31 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:06:31 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178156 Pippin: > Um, that is in the book. "I devote an entire chapter to the whole > Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even > sinister. there is no question that Dumbledore took an > unnatural interest in Potter from the word go." --DH ch 2 > > Of course Harry didn't read the chapter on DD and himself. But > would you really have wanted Harry to find out about DD's orientation > in that context? Ceridwen: We weren't told this in the book. I know other people don't see DD's love for GG impacting the story, but it makes a difference for me in how I view Dumbledore. It suddenly makes sense that he waited half a century or so to face Grindelwald, for instance. I don't see anything wrong with Harry finding out through Rita Skeeter's book. He could even have one of those moments of denial with Hermione asking him if it really makes a difference, and he would of course have to answer no. The charge is pedophelia. Harry knows, and we know by being in Harry's mind, that nothing of the sort happened. My favorite scenario would be Auntie Murial, though. The way she spouted off at the wedding, it's surprising she didn't mention a scandal linking DD romantically with his generation's Dark Wizard. Harry would have to defend Dumbledore's memory because of course, Auntie Muriel would go too far. The usual way would be for Hermione to find it out in her research. Auntie Murial reveal first for me, second, Rita Skeeter. But, like I said, your mileage may vary. Ceridwen. From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 21 00:11:55 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:11:55 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > Also seems to imply a paucity of imagination... it's nice how many > people simply get to be rich and live that way, but it's more > interesting to give the characters careers. There's no reason someone > couldn't be in the order and also have a real job - in fact, most of > the Order members we meet DO - professor, caretaker, auror, ministry > official,... thief. > > Sometimes it really feels like JKR doesn't even want to bother coming > up with something. She says she has so much in her head not in the > books, but it was her plan that none of the Marauders even had jobs > they used as their front? Weird. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) > va32h: Well I concluded a long time ago that the whole "planned in detail for 17 years" was nothing but a fan-enhanced myth. She is so clearly pulling things out of...well, you know. Honestly, I don't know why so many readers absolutely MUST have JKR's final word on everyone and everything. Isn't something you could imagine for a character just as "good" as what JKR made up off the top of her head? I certainly feel that my totally made up backstory for the marauders is as good as JKR's totally made up backstory for the marauders. And I probably thought about for longer than she did too. I hope she never writes that dang encyclopedia. I could not care less what she has to say about HP anymore. va32h From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 00:21:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:21:09 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <001501c81373$ed1c22b0$9664a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178158 > Angel Lima: > I really wish I hadn't read this bit. Goddlefrood: I am of the view that due to so many failed theories based on interviews that whatever is in them can be ignored and we readers should be free to draw our own conclusions. If people want to continue to speculate that Neville married Luna or that Snape recovered and lived to a ripe old age, then let them. If the author of A Tale of Two Cities had ever said that the two cities concerned were actually Caracas and San Salvador, would he have been believed? No, because the book itself would refute that. Why then take anything JKR says at face value if it is not supported by what's in the books? That a case could be made out for DD being gay from the books is fair enough, however there have been many speculations on, for instance, Lupin and Sirius, previously that are still supportable (not by me). If JKR says they were not does that then mean that they couldn't be? Believe whatever you choose, in other words. Imagination is a wonderful thing. I personally believe nary a word of JKR's these days insofar as they relate to the books and choose to believe that there is no great message for tolerance, or anything else in the books. Even before DH was published I wrote a short piece (not here) on why if a message was being sought in the HP books one should look elsewhere. They're just entertaining stories, no more or less than that, IMO. Goddlefrood From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 21 00:33:14 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:33:14 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178159 >Adam: > And I'm wondering if it's just a slip of the tongue, or how it came > out at first, but... why would James support Sirius, but not Lupin? > Lupin was impoverished, but James and Lily and Sirius all got to live > off of James' gold? Potioncat: Well, aren't there some more slips? Here's another bit from Adam's post, quoting JKR: "... But they were full-time fighters, that's what they did, until Lily fell pregnant with Harry. So then they went into hiding." (Potioncat) Lily and James went into hiding when she was *pregnant*? Boy, DD really did "use" Snape, didn't he? And here's a bit from the HPANA transcript: "In answering a question about Neville and finding love, Jo said that he married the landlady from the Leaky Cauldron which happened to be Hannah Abbott, and that living above the Leaky Cauldron would have impressed his students at Hogwarts." Do you think perhaps JKR meant to say Three Broomsticks rather than Leaky Cauldron? Wouldn't it make more sense that the students thought it was cool that Professor Longbottom lived over a pub in Hogsmeade? > From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Oct 21 00:45:50 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:45:50 -0400 Subject: Squib Life Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178160 Adam: "Finally, what about potions? A good potionsmaster is probably highly regarded. As long as you get your hands on the right ingredients, you should be able to make the potion, right? Or, if not, if being made by a non-magical person renders the potion defunct... then a good job might be as a potionmaster's assistant - jumping in and nulling the potion when things go wrong!" Notice that in Potions they stir with their wands. The impression I get is that this is how one charges the potion with magical energy to make it effective. Granted, a Squib could be a Potioners Assistant--collecting and preparing the ingredients, and the like. Remember that Slughorn recalled a Potioner named Granger, and wondered if Hermione were a descendant. What if the potioner had produced a Squib son who was indeed Hermione's great-grandfather? Hermione's father was a dentist, which requires a strong background in science, and Optioned is the closest thing that the WW has to a scientist. 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 Sun Oct 21 00:53:34 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:53:34 -0400 Subject: Things not overtly mentioned in canon. (was: I am so happy.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178161 Geoff: "I've light-heartedly remarked in the past that we don't hear about Harry going for a bath or even to the toilet! And have we heard much about Professor Sinistra and Astronomy lessons? Why? Because these matters are not part of the thrust of the story. If you were to ask me about my time at grammar school, I could tell you a lot but probably wouldn't think of some of the items above as being Important," Exactly. David Eddings, for example, felt compelled to show us EVERYTING in the world of the Belgariad/Malloreon. JKR only shows us what is important to the story. 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 e2fanbev at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 00:55:56 2007 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:55:56 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178162 > > Montavilla47: > LOL. That Lupin, he just never wins, does he? Sirius had his own > gold, from his uncle Alphard. Plus, what was keeping Sirius from > getting a job? So, James splurged to get Sirius a motorcyle and > Lupin was sewing patches on the elbows of his robes. > > Couldn't Dumbledore have hired him as an Assistant- > Assisant Gamekeeper if it was that bad? Did he have *no* > job experience before getting the D.A.D.A. job? No wonder > Snape was so ticked off. > > Or did Lupin get his experience doing all the dangerous > stuff for the Order? > Beverly: It IS Lupin that James helps to support after Hogwarts. That's what I read in the article anyway. "Information on the original Order members was also revealed during tonight's event. Jo related the fact that Remus Lupin, prior to the third book, was unemployable because he was a werewolf and upon his graduation from Hogwarts along with James and Lily, was supported by James using their own money. In addition to this she shed more light on the early days of the Order, saying James, Sirius, Remus and Lily were full time Order members. "Full Time Fighters," as Jo put it." 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 Beverly From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 02:10:07 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:10:07 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178163 > Prep0strus: > - in fact, most of the Order members we meet DO [have > jobs] - professor, caretaker, auror, ministry official,... thief. Mike: I just had to leave in this line, it tickled me so. :) > va32h: > > Well I concluded a long time ago that the whole "planned in detail > for 17 years" was nothing but a fan-enhanced myth. She is so > clearly pulling things out of...well, you know. Mike: Then I laughed again. :)) I'm with you va32h, I've stopped paying attention to JKR's interviews from the release of DH on. I read too many things in DH that contradicted her previous interviews (let's not repeat that list, shall we?), that I find no value in anything she hasn't written in the books. I agree with your cranial-anal inversion possibility. > va32h: > Honestly, I don't know why so many readers absolutely MUST have > JKR's final word on everyone and everything. Isn't something you > could imagine for a character just as "good" as what JKR made up > off the top of her head? Mike: Ahh, I see based on your previous implication and with this "off the top of her head" phrasing that you agree with my conjecture of her anatomically impossible contortion. ;) Especially regarding these additional news items that Adam brought up, she has confirmed to me that she hasn't thought out the back story for the Marauders AT ALL. I mean, I already seriously doubted her ability to subtract or add when it came to keeping her years straight. This "news" proves that she not just bad with maths, she didn't even try to use it. I'm going to proceed with my analysis, speculations, conjectures, and guesses without the aid of MS Rowling's excursions into the world of interviewing or Q&A. > va32h > > I hope she never writes that dang encyclopedia. I could not care > less what she has to say about HP anymore. Mike: I'll entertain possibilities in a future encyclopedia if she limits it her pre-release, backstory notes. But even then, I'm afraid it will only show her lack of insight into her own characters. It also might expose her as not as deep as we've given her credit. We may well find that the parallels, motifs, allegoricals, etc. that we've proffered are more than she intended. OK, I'll say it: Ms Rowling, could you please follow Mr. Twain's advice and cease speaking up to remove all doubt?! From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Oct 21 02:18:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:18:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471AB6DC.1090403@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178164 Ceridwen wrote: > We didn't need to be told this. Canon is closed. It's like any other > information from interviews: superfluous. Bart: Besides, as everybody knows, there is no sex in the WW. Babies are conceived through transfiguration spells. Bart From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 21 02:26:24 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:26:24 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178165 > > Ceridwen: > > > That would be another point for someone, Rita Skeeter, Auntie Muriel, > > anyone, to bring up: the Headmaster of the school having had an > > illicit relationship - is he the sort of person we want teaching our > > children? What might he be encouraging up there? And the time he > > spends alone with Harry Potter... *shocked face* That could have > > drummed up some sympathy for DD when he was otherwise not > > sympathetic. Something like this could even have been thrown into > > the OotP storyline of the Ministry trashing both Harry and DD. > colebiancardi: ouch. Why would DD's time alone spend with Harry have a shocked face next to it? Gay people are not pedophiles. In fact, most pedophiles state that they are straight. Pedophilia has nothing to do with whether you are gay or not. Also, children who are victims of pedophilia do not get trashed in any newspaper, rag or not. They are protected. I could not see even Rita Skeeter writing a piece like this. Even though HP is just a work of fiction, I would have been really offended if JKR had written that storyline (about pedophilia) in any of the books and would have probably stopped reading the HP books at that point & time. I could understand that she might be trying to correct the misinformation about gays, but at this time in our history, when WE already know that being gay has nothing to do with being a pedophile, I would not believe it even a worthy topic. Only fringe groups promote that belief, as well as the belief that gays are trying to influence children to their lifestyle. And those fringe groups are irrevelant to begin with. colebiancardi From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 02:54:49 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:54:49 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471ABF79.2050108@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178166 Magpie: > And this world is so conservative and heteronormative "Heteronormative"? Hiding silly arguments behind faux erudition doesn't make them less silly. Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're all living, walking proof of that truth. Sex may be pleasurable, it may be fun -- but its PURPOSE is making babies; therefore any sex which *doesn't* contribute to propogation of the species is ipso facto a deviation from that norm. susanmcgee48176: > The term "homosexual" by the way is considered offensive > by most lesbians and gay men, and I wonder why some people > use it so persisitently. Because it's what the word means. It's not a pejorative, it's simply descriptive. I, for one, am old enough to remember when "gay" meant "happy". Still does AFAIC. And now to keep this post on topic: allthecoolnamesgone: > Puts head in hands and groans. Why did we need to be told that > Dumbledore is gay? Is it at all relevant to the story as written? Lee Kaiwen: You beat me to the punch. I was going to make this point in my next post. I'm with you completely. It serves absolutely no narrative purpose whatsoever. I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and defend an openly homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that clever or cowardly. --CJ From cottell at dublin.ie Sun Oct 21 02:57:11 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:57:11 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > I could not see even Rita Skeeter writing a piece like this. Mus looks back up the list: As Pippin pointed out in post #178147, Rita did exactly that. She tells us via Betty Braithwaite. " 'I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy's best interests - well, we'll see. It's certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence.' " [DH, UK hb: 28-9] "Unhealthy", "sinister", "unnatural". Those are words which are routinely used as euphemisms for pederastic behaviour. Of *course* homosexuals are not pederasts. But the slur is one that tabloid journalism is never very careful to avoid. Curiously, this passage comes immediately after the one where Rita drops anvil-sized hints that there is more to the Grindelwald/Dumbledore dynamic than commonly thought. Mus, who prefers the term "pederast" because "bibliophile" means what it does. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 02:58:58 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:58:58 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178168 Mike: I'll entertain possibilities in a future encyclopedia if she limits it her pre-release, backstory notes. But even then, I'm afraid it will only show her lack of insight into her own characters. It also might expose her as not as deep as we've given her credit. We may well find that the parallels, motifs, allegoricals, etc. that we've proffered are more than she intended. Tiffany: I agree with you here, Mike. I'm looking forward to seeing the encyclopedia, but mostly to see if JKR avoids putting her foot in her mouth. I can't even count all things that I found in DH that didn't make any sense at all, esp. with regards to the characters & the storylines. I loved DH a lot, but I think she was trying to get it off her chest & if she made a few things wrong, then so be it as long as she makes money from it. Mike: OK, I'll say it: Ms Rowling, could you please follow Mr. Twain's advice and cease speaking up to remove all doubt?! Tiffany: That could be easier said than done, some folks have big egos & a desire to let themselves be heard. I'm not one to have a big ego, but because of my dramatic & opinionated nature, it's easy for folks to think that way of me. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 03:52:44 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:52:44 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?"I_like_him,_but_I=92d_also_like_to_slap_him_hard."?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178169 Who else laughed at Rowling's comments on Snape? She seems to have a very balanced take on him. Vindictive, cruel, "but he loves..." And talk about fanfiction! Rowling likes Snape! She wants to slap him hard! Bwa ha ha ha ha! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 04:00:19 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:00:19 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <4719C25D.8030803@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > C.J. said: It depends on what argument we're making. To say that a homosexual DD is not inconsistent with canon is probably true. To say that he WAS homosexual based on a couple of ambiguous passages that *could* be interpreted suggestively is a very weak argument at best. By that argument, Gandalf and Frodo must've be doing the hot-n-heavies(Snip) how about Frodo and Sam? (Snip)Turin and Beleg were just good buddies? Or Merry and Pippin? Come to think of it, Tolkie is just full of homoeroticism. If that's what one's looking for, anyway. snip) > > JKR's outting of DD tells us no more than that the DD of her imagination > was homosexual. The DD of canon, OTOH, not so much. > Tonks: It seems to me that people, especially young people, classify everyone according to their sexual orientation. One is either Straight, Bi, or Gay, as if sex were the most important thing in everyone???s life. Has no one ever heard of the concept of ???celibacy???? To be celibate is not the world of fridged women, eunuchs and gay priest. Sex is meant for the formation of a family, not an exciting contact sport for Saturday night entertainment. I know others in our society don???t agree with that, and I don???t care. Many people for thousands of years have lived lives of loving service to other as celibate members of society, most in Religious houses, and some in their own homes and families. As to the sexualization of American society, I can not spend time with a female friend without some young person asking me is she is my lover, or with a male friend, without people thinking I am on a date. Everything is sex, sex, sex. Is this what our society has come to? I never saw DD as a sexual person. As someone on another list said, ???DD is above that???. He in interested in other things. I saw his as a celibate monk type person. And these books are written for children. Children are not concerned with sex; they are interested in more important things. Just as Rowling has not overtly shown Religion in the books, she also has not brought sex into it, other that the rather innocent pairing of some of the young people and the two marriages. IMO, it is not appropriate for her to bring in such a controversial item as someone being gay at this late date, and into a children???s book. Even if she had to, for some odd reason of her own, add a person who was gay, she should have chosen someone other than DD. I am upset at Rowlings actions primary for the impact it will have on the world. I don???t care if many people in the UK and U.S. are open minded and accepting. I am open minded and accepting too. But these books are read throughout the world. And this will have an impact on those people who are not as ???progressive??? and ???liberal??? as the rest of us like to think that we are. Rowling has been very successful in doing want so many have dreamed of and failed to do. She has united all people of the world. People of all ages, races, religions, and nationalities have embraced the teaching of Albus Dumbledore as if he were a god. They have great respect for DD. Through him she has give great lessons on moral theology to people the world over. These are timeless lessons, given us by others long before DD, but through him they are brought afresh to the world of today. This is very good. And the unifying influence of the HP series is also a good thing. Now Rowlings has taken out the gun and shot herself in the foot. For whatever personal reason, one can only guess. But it severs no useful purpose to discredit her wisest of wizard in the eyes of millions of people who do not share our world view. For example, the books are read by many Muslims the world over and in places such as Iran. How do you think those people are taking this news? All I can say, is what the hell was she thinking!! Tonks_op From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 04:21:04 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:21:04 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178171 Ceridwen: > > > > > That would be another point for someone, Rita Skeeter, Auntie Muriel, > > > anyone, to bring up: the Headmaster of the school having had an > > > illicit relationship - is he the sort of person we want teaching our > > > children? What might he be encouraging up there? And the time he > > > spends alone with Harry Potter... *shocked face* That could have > > > drummed up some sympathy for DD when he was otherwise not > > > sympathetic. Something like this could even have been thrown into > > > the OotP storyline of the Ministry trashing both Harry and DD. colebiancardi: > > ouch. Why would DD's time alone spend with Harry have a shocked face > next to it? Ceridwen: Because that would be the expression of Rita Skeeter, Auntie Murial (Muriel?), or anyone else spouting that tripe. colebiancardi: > Gay people are not pedophiles. In fact, most pedophiles > state that they are straight. Pedophilia has nothing to do with > whether you are gay or not. Ceridwen: Rita Skeeter made that implication in the book when she said something about Dumbledore spending a lot of time with Harry, that the relationship was unhealthy. Usually when someone is out to trash someone else, facts have little to do with it. colebiancardi: > Also, children who are victims of pedophilia do not get trashed in any > newspaper, rag or not. They are protected. I could not see even Rita > Skeeter writing a piece like this. Ceridwen: She made the implication. "It's (the Potter-Dumbledore relationship) been called unhealthy, even sinister." *(snip)* "...but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go." *(snip again)* "It's certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence." DH, ch. 2, page 27 Scholastic. On the next page, she casts suspicion on Harry for Dumbledore's murder. colebiancardi: > Even though HP is just a work of fiction, I would have been really > offended if JKR had written that storyline (about pedophilia) in any > of the books and would have probably stopped reading the HP books at > that point & time. *(snip)* > Only fringe groups promote that belief, as well as the belief that > gays are trying to influence children to their lifestyle. And those > fringe groups are irrevelant to begin with. Ceridwen: If the gay storyline was a noticeable part of DH, I would say that the point is to show that these sorts of people are mean-spirited. Rita Skeeter is just drooling over the innuendos she's creating for her interview. She's attacking a man who is just four weeks dead in the story, and lying about how close she is to "friendless" Harry Potter. Not exactly a pillar of honesty and virtue. We know, because we're more often in Harry's POV than in any other, that any sort of allegations about Dumbledore and Harry are a load of hooey. But the allegations seem to be there, in my opinion. Did it really look like *I* was saying, as my own opinion: "the Headmaster of the school having had an illicit relationship - is he the sort of person we want teaching our children? What might he be encouraging up there? And the time he spends alone with Harry Potter... *shocked face* ?" Ceridwen. From tigerdlg1 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 04:16:54 2007 From: tigerdlg1 at yahoo.com (David Gunn) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:16:54 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178172 I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore was gay. First, she managed to keep him "closeted" for seven full books. Hardly a hint there that he was gay. Many have speculated about it; nevertheless, one had to read between the lines to find it. It's as though it was too shameful for her to write openly about it. For this to come out three months after the book is published makes it seem to be an afterthought. Further, why do so many gay characters in popular fiction have to be so damn tragic, especially in their romances? "Brokeback Mountain" is a prime example. There are many others. Why can't there be a main character who just happens to be gay? Can you imagine the outrage and outcry if Ron and Harry had had a romatic involvment, instead of Ron and Herminone? I think Rowing is throwing the gay community a bone, and then expects us to be grateful for it. It could be worse, or course. She could have told us that Tom Riddle was gay and that was the reason he turned to the Dark side and became Voldemort. David Gunn From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 04:58:00 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:58:00 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471ADC58.60907@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178173 Tonks blessed us with this gem On 21/10/2007 12:00: C.J. said: > JKR's outting of DD tells us no more than that the DD of her > imagination was homosexual. The DD of canon, OTOH, not so much. > Has no one ever heard of the concept > of celibacy? As a former monk (Order of Cistercians) I can assure there's at least one other person in this discussion familiar with celibacy. Nor do I have a problem with homosexuality. I know several of the monks in my house were homosexual; one was my best friend. So I don't have a problem with a celibate DD. My reaction -- and I think it parallels yours -- is, (as someone here -- was it Ceredwin? -- put it) -- the sacrifice of consistent characterization for the sake of political correctness. It is not merely irrelevant to the narrative, it is -- what's the proper word? -- outside the scope of the character so far as he exists in the canon (thought obviously not so far as he exists in JKR's imagination). And -- as another listie put it -- forcing us to re-evaluate a major character after the fact is, to use a Britishism -- a bad show. > IMO, it is not appropriate for her to bring in such a > controversial item as someone being gay at this late date, > and into a childrens book. On this point, however, I will defend JKR: she has never said she was writing a children's book. And, I would argue the last couple of books were certainly not appropriate for younger children at least. In cinematic terms, I'd rate them PG-13, and at that age, I think children (though maybe not all) are ready to handle concepts such as homosexuality. However, for the above reasons, I do feel it was inappropriate of JKR to drop such a bombshell at this stage. If she wanted us to think of DD as homosexual, she should have a) made the DD of canon homosexual and b) made it integral to the story. Yet another reason to discount her interviews. --CJ From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 21 04:26:52 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:26:52 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178174 Tonks: > I am upset at Rowlings actions primary for the impact it will have > on the world. I don't care if many people in the UK and U.S. are > open minded and accepting. I am open minded and accepting too. But > these books are read throughout the world. And this will have an > impact on those people who are not as "progressive" and "liberal" > as the rest of us like to think that we are. > But it severs no useful purpose to discredit her wisest of > wizard in the eyes of millions of people who do not share our > world view. For example, the books are read by many Muslims > the world over and in places such as Iran. How do you think > those people are taking this news? All I can say, is what the > hell was she thinking!! Celoneth: I don't understand why, when a large portion of the HP series is devoted to an anti-prejudice theme, would JKR care about offending bigots or challenging societal norms that are prejudiced. I'm sure that in places like Iran (or super-fundamentalist parts of America) it may be a great service to gays and lesbians living in that society to know that there are authors that consider them as human beings capable of doing great things like DD did. A slight glimmer of hope when all of society considers you to be against the norm - kind of like how the WW sees muggleborns. And why do you assume that all Muslims are anti-gay? There's a fundamentalist contingency that has political power in many mostly Muslim states that does - but that does not translate to the whole state - its the same as saying all Christians are anti-gay because all the vocal/politically powerful Christians are. Leaving prejudices to stay does no good, challenging them may not always work but its better than re-affirming them. Personally I think it added a lot. I'm glad she did this - but I'd be happier if she did it in the books. I've never really liked DD - he's always shown in the books as using others to get his goals accomplished - acceptable for some - but not someone who's considered the greatest wizard of his time. But the fact that he was able to overcome his love for Grindewald and do what is right shows great strength and character - a characteristic that should be admirable for anyone in any society - and if some are too prejudiced to see that then its their loss and if others are able to overcome their prejudices then its a win for everyone. Celoneth From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 21 05:12:21 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:12:21 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471ABF79.2050108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178175 > Magpie: > > And this world is so conservative and heteronormative > > "Heteronormative"? Hiding silly arguments behind faux erudition doesn't > make them less silly. Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're > all living, walking proof of that truth. Sex may be pleasurable, it may > be fun -- but its PURPOSE is making babies; therefore any sex which > *doesn't* contribute to propogation of the species is ipso facto a > deviation from that norm. Magpie: I'm not sure what you're referring to as silly or faux erudition. Sorry if that's a word I hear used a lot and you don't, but I didn't put it in to be faux erudite or look silly. It's a word used to describe situations wherein variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. The HP world shows heterosexuality exclusively, period, and the few mentions of same-sex romance are negative. Sure heterosexuality is normal. So is homosexuality. Both are perfectly normal in the world, not just one. Just because sex makes babies doesn't mean any sex not intended to result in babies is deviating from the norm. Sex has other puposes besides making babies. So I'm not sure what argument is being called silly. I didn't argue that heterosexuality wasn't normal. I do argue that homosexuality is also normal. Lee: I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and defend an openly homosexual character. Magpie: I find it odd that she'd think she had to defend it. Why would she have to defend having an openly gay character in a book? It's not that unusual. I would say Dumbledore being in love with Grindenwald is just as relevant to the storyline as many other love affairs shown or mentioned in the story. Tonks: She has united all people of the world. People of all ages, races, religions, and nationalities have embraced the teaching of Albus Dumbledore as if he were a god. They have great respect for DD. Through him she has give great lessons on moral theology to people the world over. These are timeless lessons, given us by others long before DD, but through him they are brought afresh to the world of today. This is very good. And the unifying influence of the HP series is also a good thing. Now Rowlings has taken out the gun and shot herself in the foot. For whatever personal reason, one can only guess. But it severs no useful purpose to discredit her wisest of wizard in the eyes of millions of people who do not share our world view. Magpie: I admit I'd be a bit worried about anybody who took Dumbledore to be a god--that's a bit much--but if hearing that he fell in love with another man makes people reject his lessons because they don't share the world view that says gay people are just as good as straight people, it's up to her which way to go. She didn't live biracial couples out of the books because they might offend people who don't believe races should mix. Perhaps she feels that if people think of Dumbledore as "discredited" because he prefers men to women as sexual partners they have already rejected his lessons. Who knows? I just doubt this would be the only thing in the books that might not be liked by people in other cultures. Harry's world isn't exactly conforming to every tradition of Islam to begin with. It seems a bit sad to suggest to unite "all the people of the world" you have to pretend a significant portion of them don't exist. Tonks: > IMO, it is not appropriate for her to bring in such a > controversial item as someone being gay at this late date, > and into a children???s book. Magpie: Children's books and more importantly YA books (which is what this is) have been featuring openly gay characters for some time now, and often show explicit sexual contact between gay characters as well. I don't see anything inappropriate in Dumbledore being revealed to have been in love with Grindenwald in the last book, which is the first book where we're supposed to be learning anything about the guy personally. I can't imagine Harry would have been all that upset by Dumbledore's being gay--he'd be more freaked out by the Grindenwald connection, which is what's already happening in the books. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 05:32:15 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:32:15 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471AE45F.6020706@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178176 colebiancardi: > Gay people are not pedophiles. The correct term -- and we can thank the media for getting this, along with so many other things, wrong -- is hebephilia (sexual attraction to adolescents) or, in this case specifically, pederasty (sexual relations between two males, especially when one is a minor). Pedophilia is generally defined as an attraction to pre-pubescent children. I agree with you, however, that blanket statements -- and here I'll make a blanket statement :-) -- are generally offensive. Some hebephiles are homosexual, some are heterosexual; apparently, a large percentage are neither. That is, many hebephiles lack the ability to form solid relationships with adults of either sex, which may help explain their hebephilia. > In fact, most pedophiles state that they are straight. I'm not disputing you here, but I would like to see the research on this. The problem is this turns out to be an exceedingly complicated question, and a lot depends on how you define your parameters. The first problem is that there has never been a study of a representative sampling of pedo- or hebephiles. The studies that have been done use either incarcerated child sex offenders or those who have sought help for their problems, neither of which can be considered a representative sampling. A further problem is how we define pedo- and hebephilia. Is a hebephile a person who is *attracted to* pubescent children, or one who has sexually abused pubescent children? Not all child sex offenders act out of sexual attraction. Their motivations are often quite complex, and may not involve sexual attraction at all. Many child sex abusers are married and enjoy what seem to be normal sexual relations with their spouses. > Pedophilia has nothing to do with whether you are gay or not. Now that's a blanket statement. The truth is, we don't know. Is the percentage of homosexuals higher amongst hebephiles than the general population? Is it lower? About the same? It may be true that most hebephiles are straight and STILL be true that the percentage of homosexuality amongst hebephiles is higher than in the general population. Or it may not. The answer largely depends on how you define "homosexual" and "hebephile". > Also, children who are victims of pedophilia do not get trashed in any > newspaper, rag or not. They are protected. I could not see even Rita > Skeeter writing a piece like this. As someone else has already pointed out -- this is exactly what Rita did. There simply is no other reasonable way to understand her references to the "unnaturalness" of DD's relationship to Harry. --CJ From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 05:34:13 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:34:13 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David Gunn" wrote: > > I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that > Dumbledore was gay. First, she managed to keep him "closeted" for > seven full books. Hardly a hint there that he was gay. Many have > speculated about it; nevertheless, one had to read between the lines > to find it. It's as though it was too shameful for her to write > openly about it. Leslie41: I don't think so. Dumbledore is, well, old, and the books are from Harry's perspective. The sex lives of teachers are not something that teenagers tend to speculate on. Dumbledore is not alone in that regard. Honestly, I don't think Harry's at all interested in which way any of the teachers swing, and if he knew anyone was gay I'd say he wouldn't care in the slightest. He might be squicked at the thought of a crumbly old man's dangly bits, but the squick wouldn't come from where DD wanted to put them, I think. David: > Further, why do so many gay characters in popular fiction have to be > so damn tragic, especially in their romances? "Brokeback Mountain" > is a prime example. There are many others. Why can't there be a > main character who just happens to be gay? Leslie41: Dumbledore *does* just happen to be gay. There's no indication that his tragedy comes from his gayness. His tragedy comes from choosing the wrong person to love. His tragedy has nothing to do with being gay anymore than Snape's has with being straight. David: > Can you imagine the outrage and outcry if Ron and Harry had had a > romatic involvment, instead of Ron and Herminone? Leslie41: Yup. Which is why she avoided that. It would have been all about Harry and Ron, everywhere, all the time, and she didn't want that. David: > I think Rowing is throwing the gay community a bone, > and then expects us to be grateful for it. Leslie41: "Throwing the gay community a bone"? Snerk! Hey, I'm not gay, but I think you're being oversensitive. Would you have been less angry if everyone in the books stayed straight? From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 05:46:39 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:46:39 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471ABF79.2050108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're all living, walking > proof of that truth. No, we're not. Many gay people marry and have children. The "gay scandals" wracking the Republican party have at their centers married men with children. > Sex may be pleasurable, it may be fun -- but its PURPOSE is making > babies; therefore any sex which *doesn't* contribute to propogation > of the species is ipso facto a deviation from that norm. Leslie41: So, are masturbators and those that use birth control "deviants"? What about post-menopausal women who still enjoy sex? Or the infertile? Lee Kaiwen: > I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her > tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual > community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and > defend an openly homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that > clever or cowardly. Leslie41: And showing tolerance and support to the gay community is wrong exactly how? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 21 06:19:37 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:19:37 EDT Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178179 CJ wrote: My reaction -- and I think it parallels yours -- is, (as someone here -- was it Ceredwin? -- put it) -- the sacrifice of consistent characterization for the sake of political correctness. It is not merely irrelevant to the narrative, it is -- what's the proper word? -- outside the scope of the character so far as he exists in the canon (thought obviously not so far as he exists in JKR's imagination). And -- as another listie put it -- forcing us to re-evaluate a major character after the fact is, to use a Britishism -- a bad show. Julie: All I can say is the revelation that Dumbledore was gay was pretty meaningless to me when it comes to evaluating, or reevaluating, the character. I did all that reevaluating in DH, based on the revelations about his past and how he treated various others around him at different times in his life. Pre-DH I often argued that the God-like benevolent character we saw in the early books was the *real* Dumbledore, despite the bits of tarnish he accumulated in OotP and HBP. But in DH it turned out that Dumbledore really was quite flawed, quite human, and not particularly benevolent. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Point is, whether Dumbledore was gay or straight, right-handed or left-handed, wore boxers or briefs, practiced Christianity or Paganism, none of it really reflects on the relative goodness of his character. Only his actions do so, IMO. So, not a "bad show" at all for me. Pretty much a no show in fact when it comes to any impact on my interpretation of Dumbledore's character. I'd also add that Dumbledore seemed fairly asexual to me, and he probably was celibate in his later years. We never got a clue what he did or who he did it with (sexually speaking) in his more youthful days, so his being straight or gay was neither particularly supported or unsupported. Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 06:22:14 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:22:14 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471AF016.5080609@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178180 Magpie: > And this world is so conservative and heteronormative CJ: > "Heteronormative" ? Hiding silly arguments behind faux > erudition doesn't make them less silly. Magpie: > if that's a word I hear used a lot and you don't, but I didn't > put it in to be faux erudite or look silly. CJ: I wasn't referring to you, but to the coiners of the word. It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia") coined for the express purpose of denying it. But a lot of this hinges on the differences between "normal" and "normative", for which, see below. Magpie: > It's a word used to describe situations wherein variations from > heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or persecuted CJ: What used, in other words, to be called "homophobia" -- another misnomer. > Sure heterosexuality is normal. So is homosexuality. The term is "heteronormative" not "heteronormal". From OnlineDictionary.com: NORMATIVE: of or pertaining to a norm, esp. an assumed norm regarded as the standard of correctness in behavior, speech, writing, etc. NORMAL: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual. (CJ: in colloquial terms often used as a synonym for "average": "I'm just a normal guy."). Homosexuality is not "normal" for the simple fact that most people are not homosexual. It is "deviant", or abnormal, in that it deviates from the behavior of most people. Note that this is statistical judgment, not a moral one. > Both are perfectly normal in the world, not just one. I need to ask you to define "normal". In the above statement you seem to mean "frequent" or "not uncommon"; but this would be different from my definition of "normal". Perhaps our disagreement here is merely over definitions. > Sex has other puposes besides making babies. No. It has other benefits and effects, certainly. But it has no other *purpose*. > So I'm not sure what argument is being called silly. The attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere cultural bias. My first encounter with this argument was about 25 years ago in a Usenet group. Some poor sap, attempting to be erudite, made the ludicrous assertion that there was "absolutely no empirical evidence" to support the contention that "heterosexuality was the norm and homosexuality a deviation" (those were his exact words). The poor fellow was operating under two disadvantages, I'm afraid. The first was that back then we didn't have big words like "heteronormative" to paint a faux veneer of erudition over what remains an exceedingly silly argument. The second was that he was a complete bonehead. Note that in nothing I have said above am I making any moral judgments or assertions about homosexuality. The argument that heterosxuality (not homosexuality) is normative is biological. The argument that it (and not homosexuality) is normal is statistical. Whether or not as a society we should be open to and supportive of homosexuality IS a value judgment, but it's an argument which I have not touched on. Magpie: > Why would she have to defend having an openly gay character in a book? Really? I would think the heated discussion the topic has generated in this list alone in the last 24 hours would be ample enough evidence. Whatever your personal views on homosexuality, the fact remains that it IS a controversial subject in most parts of the world. > I would say Dumbledore being in love > with Grindenwald is just as relevant to the storyline as many > other love affairs shown or mentioned in the story. If it were, then why didn't JKR make it so explicitly? Why hide it behind ambiguous passages and veiled references? I, for one, don't see it as relevant either to the narrative or to my understanding of the character (and I think the mere fact that her statement was such a "bombshell" indicates that most people did not). If JKR intended it to be, then she has failed in her authorial duties to make it so. --CJ From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 06:41:12 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:41:12 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178181 Leslie41: No, we're not. Many gay people marry and have children. The "gay scandals" wracking the Republican party have at their centers married men with children. Tiffany: I think the issue is as much an issue of misunderstanding of it as it is the actual homosexual vs heterosexual lifestyle. Some of my best friends in college at UofM (Minnesota) are gays & lesbians, they all know that I can respect them for who they are & are law abiding citizens who're churchgoers also. Most of my straight friends are law abiding citizens churchgoers also, so I don't want to divide people here on this topic, but simply state my experiences with both sides of this issue. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 21 08:44:15 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:44:15 -0000 Subject: Slytherins / Slughorn / Ron / put-outer / Deskpig / Seven Potters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178182 Betsy Hp wrote in : << From the age of eleven certain children are told they're bad and disgusting. >> Does anyone but Gryffindor students tell Slytherins that they're bad and disgusting? I suppose that Slytherin students express an opinion of Gryffindors, maybe that they're brainless braggarts and bullies. Does anyone but Gryffindor students boo the children who get Sorted into Slytherin? Do the Slytherins boo the children who get Sorted into Gryffindor? While Rowling unfortunately seems to see it as Slytherins are the epitome of evil and Gryffindors are the epitome of good, to me it seems that the people in the wizarding world see it as a traditional rivalry between two school Houses. I don't think the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs get much involved in the red versus green contention, altho' perhaps a fanfic that I once read was correct in asserting that the blue versus yellow rivalry was just as strong. Celoneth wrote in : << Slughorn ... doesn't refuse to teach all the other students, he doesn't mistreat them >> There are only *12* students in sixth year Potions, but by the time that Ron's birthday comes around (which is in March), he still gets Ron's name wrong all the time. He calls him 'Ralph' while handing him the mead. That is not a sign of failing memory; it is a deliberate insult. Which is a kind of mistreatment. johnson_fan4rvre48 wrote in : << He chose to ignore Ron because his father or grandfather were happy with what they did and did not have further ambitions to go on farther. So what would helping Ron do to further his own expanding resume. So he ignored Ron. But was enthralled with Harry and some of the others becasue of their names. Ginny was only invited becasue she had some real power and so in his eyes had potential, >> I guess Rowling needed Ron to be the rejected one in order to make more trouble between Ron and Hermione for the sake of her plot, because really it doesn't make sense that Slughorn would reject Ron. Ron doesn't show a lot of power or ambition, but he *does* have connections. Such as, he's best friends with Harry and Hermione, and brother to the Bat-Bogey Hex girl, the owners of Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes, the Minister of Magic's Junior Assistant, the dragon wrangler, and the man from Gringott's Bank. Ceridwen wrote in : << Dumbledore's light-putter-outer >> In PS/SS, it was called "the put-outer". When Moody used it in OoP, it was still called the put-outer. why did she change its name to 'deluminator' for DH? The ugliness of the name 'put-outer' (shouldn't it be 'putter-out', like 'passer-by'?), and how much simpler it would be to wave a wand and say 'Nox', led some listies to speculate that the name was a pun, that in addition to putting out the light i.e. darkening it, it also put out the good silverware, I mean some kind of protective spells or spy spells to protect or observe Harry's infancy. Pippin wrote in : << she set up the rules of magic so that food, clothing, shelter and love cannot be conjured out of nothing. It's quirky all right--can you transfigure your desk into a pig as long as you're not going to eat it? >> A desk is not nothing. On the other tentacle, it could be that a pig transfigured from a desk is still made of wood inside, so termites could be nourished by eating it, but humans can't. va32h wrote in : << The whole "Seven Harrys" plan was just so ridiculously dangerous and unnecessary. >> Is it something alchemical? Is there something in the alchemical process represented by something turning into seven copies? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 11:46:17 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:46:17 -0000 Subject: JKR Admits Christian Theme/Squib Life/Things Not Overtly Mentioned In Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "or.phan_ann" wrote: > In message 178142, Geoff said: > > I've written quite often about Christianty in the Potterverse but I > > never thought about this aspect in any detail owing to the state of > > real world communal religious activity in UK schools. > > > > I've light-heartedly remarked in the past that we don't hear about > > Harry going for a bath or even to the toilet! > > Ann: > But we hear about Harry doing both! He opens the Egg in the prefects' > bathroom in GoF, and where do the Trio brew that Polyjuice Potion in > CoS if not Myrtle's toilet? Geoff: Yes, but I meant in the sense of going for a bath for cleaning purposes and going to the toilet for... well- er -yes. One does not usually use a toilet for one's cottage industrial production line, does one? From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 12:03:39 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:03:39 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471B401B.1030402@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178184 CJ: > Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're all living, walking > proof of that truth. leslie41: > No, we're not. Many gay people marry and have children. Don't confuse the orientation with the act. Just like everyone else, homosexuals can produce children. And just like everyone else, they do it through heterosexual sex. Whether they enjoy it or not is, biologically speaking, irrelevant. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female. > therefore any sex which *doesn't* contribute to propogation > of the species is ipso facto a deviation from that norm. > Leslie41: > So, are masturbators and those that use birth control > "deviants"? What about post-menopausal women who still enjoy sex? > Or the infertile? Or coitus interruptus, or the simple fact that even many (most?) acts of heterosexual intercourse don't result in pregnancy. First, I'm restricting my comments to acts, not people. So the question I'm addressing is "Is masturbation and [artificial] birth control 'deviant'?" The problem is, you can't argue from the general to the specific in that way. I'm speaking to the nature of hetero- vs. homosexual sex, not the quality or suitability of any individual sex act. What you're trying to do is the equivalent of disputing my assertion "Cars are vehicles of transportation," based simply on the fact that *your* car won't start. The fact that there are individual acts of heterosexual sex that don't, for whatever reason, result in children has no bearing on the question of whether species propogation requires heterosexual sex. As to masturbation, the answer depends on how you define your terms. If you define masturbation as a sexual act equivalent to -- even a replacement for -- intercourse, then I suppose I would have to define it as "deviant". I don't see see masturbation that way. Lee Kaiwen: > I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her > tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual > community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and > defend an openly homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that > clever or cowardly. Leslie41: > And showing tolerance and support to the gay community is wrong exactly > how? Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say it was wrong. I said the *way* in which she goes about it (if indeed that what she's trying to do) strikes me as two parts clever and three parts cowardly. --CJ From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 12:58:17 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <118150.56420.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178185 David Gunn wrote in #178172: > I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that > Dumbledore was gay. First, she managed to keep him "closeted" for > seven full books. Hardly a hint there that he was gay. Many have > speculated about it; nevertheless, one had to read between the lines > to find it. It's as though it was too shameful for her to write > openly about it. Leslie41 in #178177: > I don't think so. Dumbledore is, well, old, and the books are from > Harry's perspective. The sex lives of teachers are not something > that teenagers tend to speculate on. Dumbledore is not alone in > that regard. Petra: Very true - Harry didn't even ask Dumbledore about his famous achievements and contributions to wizarding culture because the two of them have always discussed Harry (DH, US HB, pg. 21) and just how Harry might outlive Voldemort. Arguably, how Dumbledore managed to win the duel against Grindelwald might have more to contribute to Harry's chances of survival than Dumbledore's sexual preference...and they didn't even get around to discussing *that*. Discussing Dumbledore's sexuality would have been gratuitous to Harry's main focus of survival. Having said that, I think one can make the argument that discussing Dumbledore's sexuality would *not* have been gratuitous to JKR's themes of tolerance/bigotry but that's more about the author's intentions than about Harry's intentions. If I'm reading David Gunn correctly, he's really talking about JKR's intentions, not Harry's when he said: > It's as though it was too shameful for her to write openly > about it. Petra: This is an interesting response and I am curious to know how you reconcile the subtext for the above (*if* indeed you intend the subtext of "How could JKR send the message that gays should be ashamed of themselves?" of course) with the fact that JKR has spoken openly about one of her most beloved characters being gay? The thing is, I believe her when she said, "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" To me, this is a non-issue in the Wizarding World, just as racial prejudice is a non-issue. By not addressing the subjects of *bigotry* based on the specifics of skin color or sexual preference, JKR is better able to explore the broader nature of bigotry itself. How else do you reach the bigoted... and why bother to preach to the choir? How bigotry can start, how it can propagate, how evil can be done in service of bigotry *and* how bigotry can serve evil, etc. etc. are about the relationships between human beings and such relationships are much more universal and timeless than the specifics that racial prejudice and homophobia are. I don't say this to make light of either of these problems but to say that I find JKR's approach just as valid as a didactic approach. In fact, I think her approach is much more effective in the long run because I believe in the power of art to speak to the human spirit across the barriers of time and space; novels are artworks of metaphors, which are always about the relationships, which tends to be universal, rather than about the subjects themselves, which can be very temporal. Am I making sense? David: > Further, why do so many gay characters in popular fiction > have to be so damn tragic, especially in their romances? > "Brokeback Mountain" is a prime example. There are many > others. Why can't there be a main character who just happens > to be gay? Petra, with an evil grin: There is. See Albus Dumbledore. His being gay just happens to be a footnote in the Harry Potter canon. I personally don't think it's wrong to treat someone's sexuality as being only a *part* of who they are so I really have no problem with JKR bring up the topic *only* when asked: "Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?" I realize that JKR not making a major plot point of Dumbledore's sexuality can be seen as "closeting" and even at this point in history, I think that plenty of people would make that choice about a GLBT for the wrong reason: to hide the truth. However, I don't think JKR hid the truth about Dumbledore. Like most character details that might distract from the main plot of Harry vs. Voldemort, Dumbledore's sexuality is left unmentioned. It just IS. No arguments about whether it should or shouldn't exist, whether it is right or wrong. Surely that's an attitude to aspire to? That eventually it *should* be a non-issue, rather than the only trait about a human that defines him/her and the basis for bigotry and prejudice? I get that for much of the world's population, her simple acceptance (evident in the fact that JKR did not making Dumbledore's sexuality take center stage in what is Harry's story) of a gay man is bewildering but to me that suggests that JKR may be ahead of her times. So, to answer David's question about "why do so many gay characters in popular fiction have to be so damn tragic, especially in their romances? Why can't there be a main character who just happens to be gay?" I refer y'all to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33667 and would suggest that if anyone wishes to discuss this issue without bringing it back on the topic of Harry Potter that s/he should take up the conversation at Off-Topic Chatter. David: > It could be worse, or course. She could have told us that > Tom Riddle was gay and that was the reason he turned to the > Dark side and became Voldemort. Petra: Two ways that could have been written - a) being gay is the reason he became Voldemort b) being mistreated for being gay is the reason he became Voldemort Hmm...which would be "worse," in your opinion? Petra a n :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 13:28:36 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471B401B.1030402@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <327912.49218.qm@web51912.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178186 Magpie, in #178175: > I would say Dumbledore being in love > with Grindenwald is just as relevant to the storyline as many > other love affairs shown or mentioned in the story. Lee Kaiwen aka CJ (which moniker do you prefer?) in #178180: > I, for one, don't see it as relevant either to the narrative > or to my understanding of the character Petra, chiming in: Dumbledore's attraction to Grindelwald, being drawn to this brilliant person, is very relevant to the depiction of Dumbledore. I agree with much of what Ceridwen said in #178128. His actions, when it comes to Grindelwald, says a great deal about how Dumbledore became the man that is instrumental in the downfall of Voldemort. In fact, in contrasting with Bellatrix and even Regulus, Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald is extra resonant, no? Bellatrix never could see past her attraction to Voldemort even as he humiliates her in public. Regulus on the other hand, had awoken to the reality of the Dark Lord that he was such a fan of (DH, US HB, pg. 186) and subsequently did what he could to aid in the defeat of Voldemort, penning that note in the fake locket (HBP, US HB, pg. 609). In terms of the storyline, this attraction is very much in keeping with the theme of an essential aspect of evil: that it is often very attractive. However, explicitly stating that Dumbledore was blinded by his love for Grindelwald would have indeed distracted a lot of readers from the story of Harry's commencement into adulthood. More is the pity. I essentially agree with Julie, in #178179, that Dumbledore is defined much more by his actions than by his (a)sexuality. Therefore, I can see why JKR left out this detail. But I do appreciate getting this detail because this also further sheds light on why Dumbledore found it so hard to confront Grindelwald, and as Celoneth, said in #178174: > the fact that he was able to overcome his love for > Grindewald and do what is right shows great strength and > character in #178175, Magpie: > It seems a bit sad to suggest to unite "all the people of > the world" you have to pretend a significant portion of > them don't exist. Petra: Ain't that the truth? But to deliver "a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry" to the intolerant and the bigoted, one has to toe the line carefully and keep from alienating those who most need to hear the argument and the plea. Not an easy task. wynnleaf, in #178145: > Besides, I just don't think it's a good idea to finish out > the series, allow readers to read and process the books, and > then start dropping information that forces readers to reassess > main characters, their actions, decisions, etc. Petra: Hmm...but the whole process of reassessment can arguably be considered an interesting comment on the whole issue of prejudice and bigotry. Can it be said that revealing this detail post-publication allows Dumbledore to be fully fleshed out as a human being in canon, then challenge the readers with the evidence of their bigotry if this revelation should turn out to change their view of Dumbledore drastically? Petra a n :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 13:51:02 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711950.55888.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178187 va32h, in #178157: > Honestly, I don't know why so many readers absolutely MUST have > JKR's final word on everyone and everything. Isn't something you > could imagine for a character just as "good" as what JKR made up > off the top of her head? Petra: Yes, but I already know what's already in *my* head. I read books (and this group) because I want to know what's in other people's heads! Mike, in #178163: > [JKR] hasn't thought out the back > story for the Marauders AT ALL. I mean, I already seriously doubted > her ability to subtract or add when it came to keeping her years > straight. This "news" proves that she not just bad with maths, she > didn't even try to use it. Petra: Am I the only person who doesn't care that her maths sucks? To me, all those details are fun and only gets in the way if they contradict each other in ways that interfere with her theme development. When it comes to details that really matters, she got most of those right. Or maybe I'm just forgetful enough to miss the biggest Flints? Aha, case in point, the original Flint matters very little, no? I'm heartily sorry for those who found flints very distracting but I must admit to not noticing them in my leisure/HP reading. Hmm...I wonder if flints would be less distracting for the readers to come who *didn't* have to wait so long in between the publication of the books? Mike, #178163: > I'll entertain possibilities in a future encyclopedia if she limits > it her pre-release, backstory notes. Petra: I beg to differ! I think the inconsistencies are as interesting as "canon" because I'm fascinated by the process of writing. In some ways, fleshing out a plot is like reverse engineering - you know what you want the end result to be like but how do you choose the many various ways of getting there? Inconsistencies are often signs that a detail is of little significance to the author, even if they mean a lot to *us* during the process of trying to weed through her red herrings to discover the real clues [aka can(n)on for theory/ships] *before* the saga concluded. Mike, #178163: > But even then, I'm afraid it > will only show her lack of insight into her own characters. It also > might expose her as not as deep as we've given her credit. We may > well find that the parallels, motifs, allegoricals, etc. that we've > proffered are more than she intended. Petra: Here's an interesting literary dilemma - is an author only as good as he is able to interpret his own art? Or is she as good as the range and depth of response to her work? The answer to this may in part depend on one's view of how an artist's subconscious contribute, no? Petra, the insomniac a n :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 21 14:13:33 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:13:33 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: <711950.55888.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Petra wrote: > In some ways, fleshing out a plot is like reverse engineering - > you know what you want the end result to be like but how do you > choose the many various ways of getting there? > > Inconsistencies are often signs that a detail is of little > significance to the author, even if they mean a lot to *us* > during the process of trying to weed through her red herrings > to discover the real clues [aka can(n)on for theory/ships] > *before* the saga concluded. va32h: To an extent, I do blame the readership. JKR honestly answered that Harry's grandparents are all dead because she needed Harry to be an orphan. Plain and simple. But many, many readers won't just accept that and continue to ask why and how they died. So it's half our fault for not being able to (as I said earlier) use our own imaginations for these incredibly minor, petty details. But JKR certainly did not help, with her winking and vamping and "ooh I can't tell you" type answers. Inconsistencies by themselves do not bother me. Taken as a whole (and given the sheer volume of them in DH) they do undermine my trust in the author. How am I supposed to know what is "real" and what is a "Flint" when the author is so consistently careless in her details? And on a whole other level, I find it sort of rude. It would take minutes to pop onto the Lexicon and solve these "Flints". That JKR could not be bothered to take that time (when fandom has taken the time to create something like the Lexicon) just strikes me as rude. If we can waste the space in our brains to remember the definition of a Secret Keeper, why can't she? Or at least employ someone to remember it for her? va32h From Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net Sun Oct 21 14:04:20 2007 From: Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net (phoebeada) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:04:20 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: <118150.56420.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178189 Petra wrote: > To me, [homosexuality] is a non-issue in the Wizarding World, Nadine replies: I wonder if it is the other way around? What if it is completly normal and therefore not worth mentioning it in a special way? I think that it is brilliant that Dumbledore is gay. I never thought that she would actually admit having a gay character but I think it is fascinating. That gives the whole "reading between the lines" thing a whole new meaning. It is very interesting that JKR is still that active. One would think that she has fulfilled her role as an author but by throwing us little crumbs once in a while she still is stearing it bit. Do you know Roland Barthes "The death of the Author"? He says that the author is not important and that every text is written in the "here and now" if that is so, what do we make of this? I especially find this great because I am writing on a conference paper ((fanfiction in connection with the source text) I am basically trying to apply the queer theory to the HP books))at the momnet and I am also conducting a survey so if you would like to help, that would be awsome!!!!! http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=kynweklv8viva0j352337 Nadine From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 15:17:31 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:17:31 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471B6D8B.5060301@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178190 va32h blessed us with this gem On 21/10/2007 22:13: > If we can waste the space in our brains to remember the definition of > a Secret Keeper, why can't she? Or at least employ someone to > remember it for her? Out of curiosity, isn't it part of the editor's responsibility to catch just these sorts of inconsistencies? --CJ (who knows next to nothing about the publishing industry) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 15:39:05 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:39:05 -0000 Subject: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178191 "Tonks" wrote: > the books are read by many Muslims > the world over and in places such > as Iran. How do you think those > people are taking this news? That depends, are you talking about straight Iranians or the gay Iranians? Oh I forgot, according to the president of Iran there are no gay people in his country. I never predicted Dumbledore was gay but now that I think about it I should have because there were hints. For example, Dumbledore never married. True we are never specifically told that any of the other teachers had spouses either, but we know much more about Dumbledore and his back story than that of any other teacher; if he had a wife we would have heard. And when I read about his short but very intense "friendship" with the young and beautiful Grindelwald I should have been suspicious. I should have noticed in the very first book that Dumbledore's dress code was a bit over the top even by wizard standards. Even Lockhart didn't seem to have as many outrageously colorful robes as Dumbledore did. In HBP we see a young Dumbledore "drawing many curious glances due to the flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet that he was wearing". Even Harry who had seen many wizard fashions by now was surprised and couldn't help remarking "Nice suit, sir". Eggplant From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Sun Oct 21 16:06:12 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:06:12 -0000 Subject: Things Not Overtly Mentioned In Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178192 In message 178183, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: > Yes, but I meant in the sense of going for a bath for > cleaning purposes and going to the toilet for... well- er -yes. > > One does not usually use a toilet for one's cottage > industrial production line, does one? Ann: Dear Mr Bannister, It is most genteel of you to agree with my argument, and I can but hope that you extend this courtesy to the rest of my points. I must, however, note that in your gallantry you have made yourself a little unrefined for the politest society. I hope that you will in future repair such a minor deficiency, and refrain from bringing a blush to the cheeks of the ladies onlist. You also mentioned the etiquette of cottage industrial chemistry. Given the convenience of sinks, running water, drainage, and the fact that a bathtub of normal size is large enough to serve as a replacement for even a size ten cauldron, I have no hesitation in stating that a bathroom is, at least on a practical note, ideal for practising industrial chemistry. There are but two quibbles. A gentleman such as yourself will already have installed a lock on the door to prevent the inevitable noxious fumes escaping, but one should also be careful not to practise chemistry in the sole bathroom of the house, thereby disturbing other residents, both alive and undead. I hope this eliminates your uncertainty in etiquette. If you have any more, of whatever degree, do send me an owl at the usual address. Miss Ann Manners From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 21 16:10:15 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:10:15 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: <118150.56420.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178193 > Petra: > This is an interesting response and I am curious to know how > you reconcile the subtext for the above (*if* indeed you intend > the subtext of "How could JKR send the message that gays should > be ashamed of themselves?" of course) with the fact that JKR > has spoken openly about one of her most beloved characters > being gay? > > The thing is, I believe her when she said, "If I'd known it > would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" > > To me, this is a non-issue in the Wizarding World, just as > racial prejudice is a non-issue. By not addressing the > subjects of *bigotry* based on the specifics of skin color or > sexual preference, JKR is better able to explore the broader > nature of bigotry itself. How else do you reach the bigoted... > and why bother to preach to the choir? Magpie: JKR's approach to skin color and sexuality are completely different, though. Skin color she makes a non-issue by just having people of different backgrounds at the school, dating etc. She has no gay characters in the book explicitly. She didn't just announce, "Oh, X character is black--if I'd known it would make you so happy I'd have announced it years ago!" She just mentioned it as part of the description. Reading the book doesn't tell you Dumbledore's gay at all. So she didn't so much make it a non-issue, imo, but raise a different issue by making it something she left out of the books in a way she didn't leave race out of the books. It's a "what do you know!" moment in an interview rather than an integrated part of the story. Having it made part of the actual book that Dumbledore was in love with Grindenwald, or that X boy in Harry's class was snogging his boyfriend the way random people snog girlfriends, isn't didactic. (And I disagree with the recent comment somewhere else about how it would be inappropriate for Dumbledore to mention his love to Harry as part of explaining his pov--I don't see what's inappropriate about telling a 17-year-old you were in love with somebody. I can remember a few times teachers in school mentioned girlfriends or people they had crushes on to the class.) There's lots of moments in canon where romantic attraction is part of what's going on, and JKR in her interview even explained Dumbledore's attraction to Grindenwald as part of the backstory in terms of his putting off the battle with him. It's just as much of a plot as many of the other bits of Dumbledore's backstory. Lee: What you're trying to do is the equivalent of disputing my assertion "Cars are vehicles of transportation," based simply on the fact that *your* car won't start. The fact that there are individual acts of heterosexual sex that don't,for whatever reason, result in children has no bearing on the question of whether species propogation requires heterosexual sex. Magpie: I'm disagreeing with your claim that sex is designed as a way of procretion the way a car is designed as a vehicle of transportation. There's no inventor of sex who says "This is what this is supposed to be for." Procreation is one thing it's for, there are other things that it's for too now. LCJ: I wasn't referring to you, but to the coiners of the word. It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia") coined for the express purpose of denying it. Magpie: I didn't quite get this sentence--denying what? Whatever the the bad choices of the people who coined these words, they were coined to describe something they were talking about, something that seemed relevant to me. What they're describing isn't about whether one is having sex to make a baby or not. LCJ: I need to ask you to define "normal". In the above statement you seem to mean "frequent" or "not uncommon"; but this would be different from my definition of "normal". Perhaps our disagreement here is merely over definitions. Magpie: I meant normal as in usual, sane, a natural occurance. Magpie: > Sex has other puposes besides making babies. No. It has other benefits and effects, certainly. But it has no other *purpose*. Magpie: But I think those benefits are perfectly good purposes. Reproduction is a specific thing. If species evolve so that the act surrounding reproduction also has other benefits, those benefits are also a purpose of the act. Having sex with no hope of producting a child out of it does not make the sex purposeless. It just makes the purpose something other than producing a baby. If a straight couple and a gay couple are having sex for exactly the same reasons, it just seems strange to me to say that the gay couple is deviating from a norm. Aren't they both deviating from the norm just as much? Just because something isn't the original primary purpose for something doesn't mean it's not a purpose at all, does it? LCJ: Really? I would think the heated discussion the topic has generated in this list alone in the last 24 hours would be ample enough evidence. Whatever your personal views on homosexuality, the fact remains that it IS a controversial subject in most parts of the world. Magpie: We're having a discussion, but JKR isn't part of it defending anything. She just said Dumbledore was gay and went on her merry way. There are tons of gay characters in books, tv and movies, including children's books. "Am I ready to defend this?" just doesn't seem like the question the author asks him/herself when they're in there. I guess if you're just saying that anything she writes she has to defend by default that's true, but it does still kind of surprise me that she'd be put off including a gay character because she feared defending it. Not that that means you couldn't be right. Seems a bit ironic, though, given some of the things she's stated about her themes. She seems to be claiming she didn't think it was a big deal-- though that does seem a bit ingenuous to me since she herself treated Dumbledore's love of Grindenwald differently than she treated any number of straight romances in the books. I'm just saying that including a gay character in a book is a pretty common thing nowadays, so it's not like she'd be going out on a limb that way. LCJ: > I would say Dumbledore being in love > with Grindenwald is just as relevant to the storyline as many > other love affairs shown or mentioned in the story. LCJ: If it were, then why didn't JKR make it so explicitly? Why hide it behind ambiguous passages and veiled references? I, for one, don't see it as relevant either to the narrative or to my understanding of the character (and I think the mere fact that her statement was such a "bombshell" indicates that most people did not). If JKR intended it to be, then she has failed in her authorial duties to make it so. Magpie: Yes, that's the big question, isn't it? Because I would say that because she didn't put it in the book it *isn't* part of the plot. Dumbledore put off his duel with Grindenwald due to his friendship with him, his shame over his own past behavior. The book doesn't leave this a blank, it gives us a slightly different story by not including that piece of information. It changes the story and Dumbledore's motivations in this instance. Just as understanding that Hermione is attracted to Ron changes how one understands her behavior towards him in HBP. Of course it makes a difference if you're talking about someone you're in love with. The fact that Dumbledore is gay in general doesn't change the character at all, that I can see, in terms of his motivations or what he's doing/thinking most of the time in canon outside of that one thing where he's being motivated by being love with a man. However, it is part of who the character is as much as anything else so I see no reason to leave it out unless, as you say, she doesn't want to have a gay character in her books for some reason. I can see how for most of canon there just might not have been an easy way to bring it up, but it's not impossible to do it in a casual way by a longshot in the entire series. But doing it the way she did meant she wrote a romantic relationship that comes up in her story as a platonic one (for which a particular reader may or may not see gay subtext). I don't see why it should be any more distracting than any of the other romantic entanglements we see in the story unless one is especially distracted or put off by same-sex attraction. Which many people are, I know, but it's up to the author whether they want to write to that audience or not. I do think it's a bit disingenuous for JKR to say, "If I'd known it would make you happy, I'd have said it years ago!" when she knows perfectly well that she's presented other backstories that center on being in love and said so, but didn't tell this one. Yet did make sure to select a question in an interview so she could answer it and get all over the news. Petra: Ain't that the truth? But to deliver "a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry" to the intolerant and the bigoted, one has to toe the line carefully and keep from alienating those who most need to hear the argument and the plea. Not an easy task. Magpie: I have to admit, I'm just not seeing the prolonged argument for tolerance or a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry in this series at all. It's one of the reasons I finished DH and thought: What the hell was that? Nadine replies: I wonder if it is the other way around? What if it is completly normal and therefore not worth mentioning it in a special way? Magpie: That's how race is, and this isn't handled like race. We know there are people of different races (in Muggle terms) in canon, but this is not remarked upon by the characters who have different distinctions. In order to do that with gay people they'd have to be there explicitly and not remarked upon. As it is in the books there are 3 mentions that I can remember that refer to same sex pairings. There's Dudley (not a wizard) snarkily asking Harry "Who's Cedric, you're boyfriend?" That's supposed to make Harry feel embarassed. There's also Ron's comment that Percy and Crouch are going to "announce their engagement any day now," which implies the same sort of attitude in the WW as is often found in the Muggle world. Ron is mocking Percy's attachment to Crouch by saying they should get married when they're two men. And then there's Rita's nasty implication that Dumbledore has a bad interest in Harry (does she actually say unnatural)? This is more a charge of an adult preying on a child, but in this case it's a same-sex predatory relationship. -m From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 21 16:13:33 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:13:33 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: <471B6D8B.5060301@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178194 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > va32h blessed us with this gem On 21/10/2007 22:13: > > > If we can waste the space in our brains to remember the definition of > > a Secret Keeper, why can't she? Or at least employ someone to > > remember it for her? > > Out of curiosity, isn't it part of the editor's responsibility to catch > just these sorts of inconsistencies? > > --CJ (who knows next to nothing about the publishing industry) > va32h: I'm sure it is, but does the author have NO responsibility to her own text? She can blather on about anything and it's the editor's duty to make sense out of it? Blame the editor if you like, but I blame JKR. va32h From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 21 16:56:02 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Oct 2007 16:56:02 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/21/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1192985762.9.74224.m45@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178195 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 21, 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 hexicon at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 17:02:32 2007 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Kristen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:02:32 -0000 Subject: What about the gay villain angle (was Re: A Gay Potter Character?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David Gunn" wrote: David Gunn: It could be worse, or course. She could have told us that Tom Riddle was gay and that was the reason he turned to the Dark side and became Voldemort. Hexicon: But, we do get a (presumably) gay supervillain in GG. (I'm working from the statement that DD "fell in love with" GG and the canon of their reciprocal intense friendship.) That's the flipside of her revelation about DD, the "epitome of goodness." What do people think about the "Hitler" of the WW being gay? Lee Kaiwen: I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual community while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and defend an openly homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that clever or cowardly. Hexicon: Notwithstanding JKR's supposed message of tolerance (for all but Slytherins), I never thought we'd see an openly gay couple expressly portrayed as such, but I was still hoping for, as you put it, a "bone," such as, hmmm, Professor Flitwick saying hello to Harry from behind a white picket fence in Hogsmeade while playing with a couple of barking little krups as Florian Fortescue waves happily from the kitchen window while whipping up a gourmet meal. Or, more importantly, prior to OOTP, I wanted to see a discreet but definite read-between-the-lines Remus/Sirius partnership(as in the film comment about the "old married couple.") I'm glad she stated that DD was gay, and on the whole I think it more brave than cowardly. But, as another poster said, why do so many literary portrayals of same-sex love have to be so darn tragic? Not only did DD's youthful first love involve a fascination with fascism and indirectly result in the death of his sister, but then he reluctantly had to defeat and imprison his supervillain erstwhile lover for the good of the WW, following which he apparently devoted himself to the school and students rather than pursuing a personal life. Given all the straight pair bonding in the books, I wish she'd shown us a happy gay or lesbian couple, even if portrayed indirectly. That would have been brave too. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 21 17:16:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:16:08 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178197 > va32h: > > > To an extent, I do blame the readership. JKR honestly answered that > Harry's grandparents are all dead because she needed Harry to be an > orphan. Plain and simple. But many, many readers won't just accept > that and continue to ask why and how they died. So it's half our > fault for not being able to (as I said earlier) use our own > imaginations for these incredibly minor, petty details. > > But JKR certainly did not help, with her winking and vamping and "ooh > I can't tell you" type answers. Pippin: She was under no obligation to tell us which missing answers were important and which weren't. That in itself would give things away. va32h > And on a whole other level, I find it sort of rude. It would take > minutes to pop onto the Lexicon and solve these "Flints". That JKR > could not be bothered to take that time (when fandom has taken the > time to create something like the Lexicon) just strikes me as rude. > If we can waste the space in our brains to remember the definition of > a Secret Keeper, why can't she? Or at least employ someone to > remember it for her? Pippin: Popping into the lexicon only works if she's uncertain, not if she remembered something wrongly, or if, as seems to be the case with the Secret Keeper thing, she changed her mind. That's an author's perogative even after a book has been published. Tolkien largely rewrote The Hobbit to support The Lord of the Rings. He continued to revise LOTR for years afterwards. I haven't heard any serious critic complain that it compromised the integrity of his message. I have read that there are editors at both Bloomsbury and Scholastic charged with catching continuity errors, and of course we don't know about the ones they caught. But if JKR was under deadline, as she says, then so were they. I don't know *why* there needed to be a deadline for DH. But my guess is that three reasons might be Dan, Rupert and Emma. Time waits for no youth and I think she's on record as saying she hoped they could play the parts to the end. Pippin From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 16:30:52 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:30:52 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178198 > Magpie: > I don't think that really applies here, just because first, he's > Dumbledore. How could he only be defined by that? But more > importantly, I can't see why this wouldn't be made explicit if it > were a het romance. And this > world is so conservative and heteronormative that's even more reason > to make it explicit, defining or not! afn: There was definitely a heteronormative world view in the series. Everyone (except murky X rated fan fic which doesn't interest me in the least)seems to expect male-female pairings from beginning to end, and the thrust of so much discussion has not been the characters' orientation as much as blatant expression that hetero is the focus in the books as well as fan discussion. E.g. "Who will "X" (this character) marry, dance with, or kiss _always_ of the opposite sex. This existed from beginning to end with all the epilogue pairings and discussions of pairings (het only) of the children of the principal characters. > > That said, reading it I actually did personally put in DD/GG when I > read it. Only I thought it was requited and they had a great, heady > romance that whole summer until it ended, you know, badly. afn: I felt exactly that same way, i.e. heady romance. Whatever sexual acts they might be called a couple. From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 16:11:56 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:11:56 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178199 > Magpie: > Actually, there isn't a gay couple, there's a gay man. She said > Dumbledore had an *unrequited* affair with Grindenwald. So yeah, more > like Snape. > > -m > But Lily and Snape made it into canon with Snape's unrequited affair. Plus we get lots more about that love. With DD, the human love attraction is far less transparent, but I too as someone else said picked up on something more than friendship with Grindelwald and DD. Though, it seems like this would have been an even more sensational allegation in Rita Skeeter' Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore. Perhaps because of the largely young audience of the printed books, JKR didn't want to be that explicit in the black and white text of DH. For those of us who go deeper, there is more to be told. The topic of orientation at whatever age would not be inappropriate, but perhaps playing this down for a wider general readership was appropriate. Ideas? afn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 21 18:24:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:24:28 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178200 > Magpie:. > (And I disagree with the recent comment somewhere else about how it > would be inappropriate for Dumbledore to mention his love to Harry as > part of explaining his pov--I don't see what's inappropriate about > telling a 17-year-old you were in love with somebody. I can remember > a few times teachers in school mentioned girlfriends or people they > had crushes on to the class.) Pippin: Maybe times have changed? There was a time when gentlemen did not kiss and tell, and it was considered indiscrete to discuss your love affairs of whatever persuasion with anybody. Also, I think JKR wanted the emphasis on Dumbledore's unwillingness to fight Grindelwald to be on Ariana because the theme is familial rather than romantic love. Though there are lots of moments in canon where romantic attraction is going on, overall the work is an epic and in epics romantic attraction is at most a waystation or an obstacle on the way to the creation or reunion of a family. > Nadine replies: > > I wonder if it is the other way around? What if it is completly > normal and therefore not worth mentioning it in a special way? > > Magpie: > That's how race is, and this isn't handled like race. We know there > are people of different races (in Muggle terms) in canon, but this is > not remarked upon by the characters who have different distinctions. > In order to do that with gay people they'd have to be there > explicitly and not remarked upon. As it is in the books there are 3 > mentions that I can remember that refer to same sex pairings. There's > Dudley (not a wizard) snarkily asking Harry "Who's Cedric, you're > boyfriend?" That's supposed to make Harry feel embarassed. There's > also Ron's comment that Percy and Crouch are going to "announce their > engagement any day now," which implies the same sort of attitude in > the WW as is often found in the Muggle world. Ron is mocking Percy's > attachment to Crouch by saying they should get married when they're > two men. Pippin: I thought he was mocking them by saying that Percy's attachment to Crouch was so intense that it might as well be romantic, not that there was anything wrong with a romantic attachment between men per se. So for me there was a marked contrast between the homophobic remarks in the Muggle world (you left out Vernon's reference to nancy boys) and the absence of such remarks in the WW. The taboos in the WW that we know of are dating more than one person at a time, predatory sex, and getting married when very young (though that is relaxed in time of war.) It would have been easy to work in a taboo against same sex relationships -- it's not so easy, I think, to work in the absence of it. The trouble is, while it's easy to show racial differences that have no effect on lifestyle in the WW, it's hard to see how you could depict gayness in the same way, especially if you're sensitive to the issues of tokenism. Magpie: And then there's Rita's nasty implication that Dumbledore > has a bad interest in Harry (does she actually say unnatural)? This > is more a charge of an adult preying on a child, but in this case > it's a same-sex predatory relationship. Pippin: "Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy's best interest --well, we'll see. It's certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence." -US DH p27 It stands out to me that with all her hinting about scandal, Rita doesn't hint that there's anything scandalous about a same sex relationship -- it's Dumbledore as predator that she's concerned with. She doesn't, for example hint that Darling Dodgy had a romantic interest in Dumbledore, despite their plans to travel the world together, though it seems rather obvious now. Pippin From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 17:06:48 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:06:48 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471ABF79.2050108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178201 > > Magpie: > > And this world is so conservative and heteronormative > Lee Kaiwen : > "Heteronormative"? Hiding silly arguments behind faux erudition doesn't > make them less silly. Of *COURSE* heterosexuality is normative. We're > all living, walking proof of that truth. Sex may be pleasurable, it may > be fun -- but its PURPOSE is making babies; therefore any sex which > *doesn't* contribute to propogation of the species is ipso facto a > deviation from that norm. afn: Sorry, but this is off the mark. The purpose of sex--even to mainstream conservatives--is both procreative AND _unitive_. We could even argue all the assumed heterosexuality of the HP characters as found throughout canon (and perhaps to the whole WW) is heteronormative (please realize, I didn't introduce the term here). Would you prefer using the more pejorative term--which is far from faux erudition in social science and other legitimate fields--of heterosexist. Whether intended or not by JKR, the canon WW we have could also be called heterosexist. Many examples could be offered, though that seems tedious and getting somewhat far afield. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 19:11:28 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:11:28 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178202 Pippin: Though there are lots of moments in canon where romantic attraction is going on, overall the work is an epic and in epics romantic attraction is at most a waystation or an obstacle on the way to the creation or reunion of a family. Tiffany: I've read some epic fantasy trilogies, almost all after SS came out & there's always a good romantic storyline tossed in here & there. However, most of the times, it's only been a minor part in the actual overall body of work. There's a lot of romancing in the canon itself, but in the Potterverse, it's a microscopic thing when compared with other elements & themes. Sometimes, it can be important to the overall story, but mainly it's just a "bit player" in the actual canonical novel. From Woodsy at Nova1.net Sun Oct 21 18:29:01 2007 From: Woodsy at Nova1.net (woodsy0914) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:29:01 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <471ABF79.2050108@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178203 > Lee Kaiwen: > > You beat me to the punch. I was going to make this point in my next > post. I'm with you completely. It serves absolutely no narrative purpose > whatsoever. I get the impression that JKR is trying to show her > tolerance and support by throwing a bone to the homosexual community > while avoiding the hassle of actually have to write and defend an openly > homosexual character. I'm torn between calling that clever or cowardly. > > JLR once again draws attention to her _finished_ product by adding unnecessary information and announcing something (ooooooooooh!) "controversial". It looks to me like JKR is making these after-the-fact revelations because she intends to milk that cash cow for all it's worth. Being twice as rich as the Queen isn't enough, evidently. Canon ended with the books, IMO. AM From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 21 19:22:14 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:22:14 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178204 > > Magpie:. > > (And I disagree with the recent comment somewhere else about how it > > would be inappropriate for Dumbledore to mention his love to Harry as > > part of explaining his pov--I don't see what's inappropriate about > > telling a 17-year-old you were in love with somebody. I can remember > > a few times teachers in school mentioned girlfriends or people they > > had crushes on to the class.) > > Pippin: > Maybe times have changed? There was a time when gentlemen > did not kiss and tell, and it was considered indiscrete to discuss your > love affairs of whatever persuasion with anybody. Magpie: Telling someone that you were in love with someone else isn't actually kissing and telling. There may have been no kissing involved at all. Whether or not Dumbledore chooses to admit that he was motivated by being in love with someone among other things aside, "indiscreet" and "kissing and telling" usually applies to what you got up to sexually with someone, which is a different thing. Dumbledore has brought up sexual attraction to Harry when they were relevant without being coy--they both watched Hephzibah Smith flirt with Tom Riddle and talked about Merope being in love with Tom's father. It's not immediately more indiscreet because it's a same sex attraction. > Pippin: > I thought he was mocking them by saying that Percy's attachment to > Crouch was so intense that it might as well be romantic, not that > there was anything wrong with a romantic attachment between men > per se. So for me there was a marked contrast between the homophobic > remarks in the Muggle world (you left out Vernon's reference to nancy > boys) and the absence of such remarks in the WW. Magpie: I think the humor of the remark comes from the same place Dudley's does, myself, which is a different place than the Twins' jokes about Bill and his "Engleesh lessons" vith Fleur. Dudley didn't indicate there was anything wrong with same sex relationships when he asked if Cedric was Harry's boyfriend either. Neither is as blatantly hostile as the "nancy boy" remark but I think the distinction between Dudley and Ron, if any, is a little too subtle to be sure of. Pippin: > > The taboos in the WW that we know of are dating more than one > person at a time, predatory sex, and getting married when very > young (though that is relaxed in time of war.) It would have been > easy to work in a taboo against same sex relationships -- it's > not so easy, I think, to work in the absence of it. > The trouble is, while it's easy to show racial differences that have > no effect on lifestyle in the WW, it's hard to see how you could depict > gayness in the same way, especially if you're sensitive to the issues > of tokenism. Magpie: I don't see how it much is at all difficult to show, since she did it with race. Just mention a same sex couple along with the random references to straight couples if one is making that point that sexual orientation is a non-issue for Wizards the way Muggle race is. It's the only way you can do it, really, since making it invisible just recreates the way it's been treated in societies where it's not a non-issue. If one's sensitive to tokenism I'd think this announcement about Dumbledore would ping you more than having Harry mention some of the background couples are same sex, or throwing in a same sex couple. > > Magpie: > And then there's Rita's nasty implication that Dumbledore > > has a bad interest in Harry (does she actually say unnatural)? This > > is more a charge of an adult preying on a child, but in this case > > it's a same-sex predatory relationship. > > Pippin: > "Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, > but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in > Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy's > best interest --well, we'll see. It's certainly an open secret that > Potter has had a most troubled adolescence." -US DH p27 > > It stands out to me that with all her hinting about scandal, Rita > doesn't hint that there's anything scandalous about a same > sex relationship -- it's Dumbledore as predator that she's > concerned with. She doesn't, for example hint that Darling > Dodgy had a romantic interest in Dumbledore, despite > their plans to travel the world together, though it seems rather > obvious now. Magpie: My point was that there are three times (the nancy comment means four) where I remembered an explicit reference to the possibility of same sex relationships at all and I think this counts as one of them. The fact that Rita isn't coming out and saying "I think same sex relationships are what's icky here" is besides the point. I'm just saying it's not a reference that says it's a non-issue or is particularly positive. That she isn't as anti-gay as she could be is a different thing as well, imo. Rather than having openly gay characters or couples in canon, I'm having to do some deducting-- surely if gay and lesbian relationships were not completely accepted Rita would have looked at two male school friends planning to tour the world together, thought that meant they must be gay, and put that down. Or maybe if her outlook is to assume that everyone is straight she would look at two male schoolfriends traveling the world and not imagine they were lovers because they're two men and only brings up the suggestion of a sexual relationship between two men when she sees the relationship as bad. I don't know. Pippin: Though there are lots of moments in canon where romantic attraction is going on, overall the work is an epic and in epics romantic attraction is at most a waystation or an obstacle on the way to the creation or reunion of a family. Magpie: Not sure what that's explaining. Is it just saying that gay couples just don't have a place in epics? Because this doesn't see like a reason to not include any or not mention Dumbledore was in love with Grindenwald one way or the other. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 21 20:09:48 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:09:48 -0000 Subject: Things Not Overtly Mentioned In Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "or.phan_ann" wrote: > > In message 178183, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > Geoff: > > Yes, but I meant in the sense of going for a bath for > > cleaning purposes and going to the toilet for... well- er -yes. > > > > One does not usually use a toilet for one's cottage > > industrial production line, does one? > > Ann: > Dear Mr Bannister, > > It is most genteel of you to agree with my argument, and I can but > hope that you extend this courtesy to the rest of my points. I must, > however, note that in your gallantry you have made yourself a little > unrefined for the politest society. I hope that you will in future > repair such a minor deficiency, and refrain from bringing a blush to > the cheeks of the ladies onlist. Geoff: Having avoided any words of questionable etymology and also any unseemly euphemisms, I thought I had replied in exemplary fashion. However, having decided, in view of my increasing age which, like most people, I find difficult to avoid, that it perhaps time that I made an executive decision to grow old disgracefully. Ann: > You also mentioned the etiquette of cottage industrial chemistry. > Given the convenience of sinks, running water, drainage, and the fact > that a bathtub of normal size is large enough to serve as a > replacement for even a size ten cauldron, I have no hesitation in > stating that a bathroom is, at least on a practical note, ideal for > practising industrial chemistry. Geoff: May I remind you that I was making references to Mr.Harry Potter and to his habits while resident in Hogwarts school where he would, with his contemporaries, be using toilets designed for public use rather than individual domestic style ones. Therefore, I would not expect to find a bathtub of any size in such a situation. Certainly Miss Granger and Messrs.Potter and Weasley did not appear to have access to such equipment in their production of Polyjuice Potion. I still maintain my original stance that we have no canon referring to Harry performing personal ablutions in any detail as an example of the fact that many everyday routines do not really impinge on the development of the story. Ann: > There are but two quibbles. A gentleman such as yourself will > already have installed a lock on the door to prevent the inevitable > noxious fumes escaping, but one should also be careful not to > practise chemistry in the sole bathroom of the house, thereby > disturbing other residents, both alive and undead. Geoff: I fail to see why locking the cubicle door will prevent the escape of fumes. Toliets are not usually fitted with airtight doors - at least in the UK. Ann: > I hope this eliminates your uncertainty in etiquette. If you have any > more, of whatever degree, do send me an owl at the usual address. Geoff: I don't think I do feel uncertain. I feel that, perhaps, we are singing from different editions of the Hogwarts etiquette songsheet..... Thank you for your esteemed communication. Sincerely Geoff Bannister This message has been checked and found to be free of hexes, Dementors and Inferi. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 20:11:32 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:11:32 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > That's how race is, and this isn't handled like race. We know there > are people of different races (in Muggle terms) in canon, but this is > not remarked upon by the characters who have different distinctions. > In order to do that with gay people they'd have to be there > explicitly and not remarked upon. As it is in the books there are 3 > mentions that I can remember that refer to same sex pairings. There's > Dudley (not a wizard) snarkily asking Harry "Who's Cedric, you're > boyfriend?" That's supposed to make Harry feel embarassed. There's > also Ron's comment that Percy and Crouch are going to "announce their > engagement any day now," which implies the same sort of attitude in > the WW as is often found in the Muggle world. Ron is mocking Percy's > attachment to Crouch by saying they should get married when they're > two men. And then there's Rita's nasty implication that Dumbledore > has a bad interest in Harry (does she actually say unnatural)? This > is more a charge of an adult preying on a child, but in this case > it's a same-sex predatory relationship. Montavilla47: I suppose if there is a moment in the books, then it might be when we see Crabbe and Goyle show up at the Yule Ball in matching robes and no dates. But, again, if that's a reference to them as a gay couple, it went way over my head. I mean, Harry's a modern kid. He could have caught any number of TV programs at the Dursley's that have gay characters. If homosexuality is that accepted in the Wizarding World, would Harry have perceived Crabbe and Goyle as "dateless" or simply thought of them as a couple? From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 21:08:45 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:08:45 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178207 I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned some of the real problems with the matter of DD having been in love with GG, and having "protected" GG for so long because of this love. GG was very young when DD fell in love with him. If I'm not mistaken, he was an older teen, just like DD. He was not an *adult* yet. He was also very handsome. We now know, according to the interview, that DD dissimulated the true reason he waited for so long to go after GG. Now, let me remind you of another boy. Tom Riddle was an extremely handsome boy during his Hogwarts years. We know that DD knew that there was something off about Tom, even before Tom set foot in Hogwarts. We also know that DD knew that Tom must somehow be behind all the nastiness happening at Hogwarts those years, including the murder of a student. And yet, DD didn't tell *anybody* what he knew and suspected about Tom. He also failed to confront Tom directly at any time. See the similarities? There's also the case of Sirius Black. Sirius, while in Hogwarts, deliberately sent another student to his death, but he was never seriously punished for that. Is it a coincidence then that Sirius happened to be another extremely handsome youth? If you add on top of all this the facts that: 1- We've never heard of DD having ever loved a man, any man, any *adult* man. 2- DD deliberately chose to spend his life at Hogwarts. Around teenagers. Lots and lots of teenagers. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. Compared to how many single adult men? 3- We know that DD sometimes goes *invisibly* around the castle at night. I'd say we have a good case of DD being not gay, but ephebophile: it's not men he loves, but teenage boys. Now where does that leave Harry? What do we know of DD's feelings for Harry? Well, he told them to us himself, didn't he? He said that he had come to "care" for Harry, that he didn't want LV to know that Harry and DD were "more" than student and teacher, and so on. And let's not forget DD's tear when Harry said that he was "DD's man, through and through": what prompted those tears, Harry's expressed feelings of loyalty, or the resonance that those words might have had with some romantic dream on the part of DD? See, that's the problem I have with JKR revealing that DD is "gay": the canon doesn't support at all DD being gay (ie attracted to grown men), but it amply supports DD being ephebophile (ie attracted to teenage boys). Do I believe that DD was ephebophile? No. First because either I believe JKR who says "gay", or I believe what I see in the canon which says, well, nothing at all, and thus implicitely classic heterosexual. And second because it's just too yucky to see things that way, and frankly I don't want to be on Rita Skeeter's side on anything. But do I believe that the canon supports ephebophilia far more than homosexuality? You bet. Celibate ephebophilia (ie: I don't think DD ever sexually acted on it, at least once he became an adult), but ephebophilia nonetheless. And that stinks. And there's another thing that stinks. Look at what DD's love for GG made him do: it made him wait for decades before confronting evil, allowing countless innocents to be harmed and killed. How does this compare to DD's (and JKR's) message about Love and the Power of Love? DD keeps telling Harry that it's his ability to love which will eventually allow him to beat LV. But what did DD's ability to love do to him? It *prevented* him from fighting evil. DD had to set his love aside in order to be able to beat evil. How come the rules are so different in his case? Ah, yes: his was a gay love. Apparently, heterosexual love and motherly love fortify one against evil, but gay love weakens one. All of you out there who are so happy about JKR making DD gay really should reconsider what it implies about DD and about gay love: it's not at all what you might think. Del From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Oct 21 22:20:55 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:20:55 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > Dumbledore's relationship with Grendelwald > *would* be newsworthy information for the Prophet, regardless of the > Wizarding World's views on homosexuality. Good grief, Grendelwald > became an evil Dark Lord! Of *course* it would be important if > Dumbledore had more than just a friendly relationship with him. If > JKR chose to -- rather unrealistically -- have Rita not print anything > implying such a relationship between Dumbledore and Grendelwald, yet > tell us later in interviews that such a relationship existed, I > personally think JKR has reached the point of augmenting her novels to > the extent that it's harming rather than helping. Allie: JKR makes no indication that ANYONE - including Grindelwald and Aberforth - knew that Dumbeldore was gay and fell in love with GG. Just like she makes no indication whether or not it was a requited love or any sort of physical relationship. So it IS possible that DD fell in love with the man and yet we still did not hear about it from Auntie Muriel or Rita Skeeter. My assumption is they didn't know. From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 22:26:27 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:26:27 -0000 Subject: Slytherins / Slughorn / Ron / put-outer / Deskpig / Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178209 I do have a thought on the seven Harrys. I do agree with the thought that this was dangerous. It seems the Order had the reason to not trust Snape. So is that why you would feel that they changed things in the last minute? Also another thing that I did not think of til right now was, the way that they separated the seven Harrys. It was weird that they had placed Hermione and Ron with well established wizards, ( I mean not as bumbling) . They put Harry with Hagrid - did that seem a little off to anyone else? Amanda From Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net Sun Oct 21 20:11:32 2007 From: Nadine.Farghaly at gmx.net (phoebeada) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:11:32 -0000 Subject: [SHIP] Maybe Draco is Gay Too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178210 tangible_magic wrote: > > Avidly Obsessive Harry/Draco shipper here: > > Given JKR announcing that DD is gay, I think it is entirely likely > that Draco is gay - and in love with Harry. That's why he hates him. > Hates himself - imagine the prejudice against homosexualilty in a > pure-blood family and the pressure to produce an heir. > > Though these wondeful lines can be otherwise explained away, I do > think they add weight to my arguement. > <2 DH quotes> > "Don't kill him! DON'T KILL HIM!" > "Draco holding onto Harry so tightly it hurt?" > (Harry is literally Draco's knight in shining armour. *big happy sigh*) > > The fight after the Quidditch match? (5th book I think) - unresolved > sexual tension, anyone? > > (Being married + child doesn't mean he isn't gay, btw. But the > epilogue doesn't exist IMO ;) ) > > Anyone agree? Or am I on a limb? Am i seeing the world through > Harry/Draco-coloured glasses? Nadine: No, I think you definitely have a point here. I was wondering how many other characters are going to step out of the closet. Why should Dumbledore be the only one? I also wonder if it was "known" in the wizard world that he was gay. What if being gay doesn't matter in the HP world? Maybe that is one of the reasons why average pureblood families have so few offspring. And yes, there IS definitely a lot of tension between Harry and Draco. I was wondering if you would be interested to take part in my survey. It is about fanfiction in connection with the source text, (I am basically trying to apply the queer theory to the HP books) at the moment. My main focus IS on Harry and Draco. It would be great if you could find the time to do it. http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=kynweklv8viva0j352337 Nadine From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 22:55:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:55:40 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <47197D80.3050207@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178211 Alla quoted a Leaky article: > > > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay > Lee replied: > Well, I'd have to dispute the subject line: "There is a gay couple in canon". I'd say this is another clear case of a difference between a character in her head and the one on the page. If the character in JKR's mind is homosexual, that's fine. But there's nothing of it in the canon. Carol responds: I agree with you. It seems to me that, since the last book came out, JKR has been trying to control the interpretation of her characters and to treat her speculations about the future of her surviving characters (for example, Neville's future wife, who started out to be Luna and is currently Hanah Abbot, or Ron's job, which started out as Auror and then became a partner in George's shop) or her views on her characters' personalities (e.g., the various remarks on Snape, whom she seems to have trouble distinguishing from the chemistry teacher who inspired him). Now we have Dumbledore's unrequited love for Grindelwald, whereas in canon, all we have is an aborted friendship and DD's five-year hesitation in going after Grindelwald. But that's all there is, and the reader is free to posit other (equally uncanonical) explanations for DD's hesitation. If it isn't in the books, it isn't canon. And an author's intentions, or her personal interpretation, should not take precedence over other interpretations that consider the text and only the text (including gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities--I'm not assuming a consistent text with an-always reliable narrator). Sorry, JKR, but I'm capable of interpreting the books without your help, as is everyone else on this list, and I really wish you would just stop giving interviews altogether. Put your energies and imagination into writing another book and leave the Potterverse alone. I'm at a point where I don't even want the encyclopedia. (Read "Death of the Author," JKR. Or if that's too extreme, try "The Intentional Fallacy." Did Jane Austen tell people how to interpret her books? Did the Bronte sisters? Did Herman Melville? Trust your readers, and let your readers trust your text, or determine where it's untrustworthy by comparison to other passages. Carol, taking anything JKR says about her characters and her imagined view of them with more than a grain of salt From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 22:53:33 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:53:33 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178212 Since I started to re read the books from the begining, I have noticed something. She gives a brief glimpse that maybe Severus Snape was not exactly who we thought him to be. I know putting that thought into the story so early would damper our thought that were allowed to build up in PoA, OotP, and GoF. I wish she did not keep him so dark and seemingly hated in the story becasue even in the end it left you with the feeling even after he did as he was asked he was still hated. Even to his point of death. I feel bad that I was so slow to pick this up, but I feel that Sanpe was given a bad rep. Some of her thoughts seemed a little different when it came to the slytherins also. She puts almost as much time into making Snape evil as Malfoy and it is sad, considering he really was one of the good guys. Amanda From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 22:44:55 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:44:55 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178213 Prep0strus: > > ... - professor, caretaker, auror, ministry official,... thief. > va32h: > > Well I concluded a long time ago that the whole "planned in detail > > for 17 years" was nothing but a fan-enhanced myth. > Mike: > I find no value in anything she hasn't written in > the books... > > va32h > > I hope she never writes that dang encyclopedia... > Mike: > OK, I'll say it: Ms Rowling, could you please follow Mr. Twain's > advice and cease speaking up to remove all doubt?! I snipped out as much as I dare so you all can understand my thought. I honestly thought I was the only one to see how things had been left out or full stories were not completely thought out. I must re-read Deathly Hallows because her thought left me confused, and then I see where your statements had left me thinking, I was not the only one to see how it was sort of a let down when you hold it up to her other books. Amanda From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Oct 21 23:04:02 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:04:02 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178214 > Magpie said: > "That's how race is, and this isn't handled like race. We know there > are people of different races (in Muggle terms) in canon, but this is > not remarked upon by the characters who have different distinctions. > In order to do that with gay people they'd have to be there > explicitly and not remarked upon. As it is in the books there are 3 > mentions that I can remember that refer to same sex pairings. There's > Dudley (not a wizard) snarkily asking Harry "Who's Cedric, you're > boyfriend?" That's supposed to make Harry feel embarassed. There's > also Ron's comment that Percy and Crouch are going to "announce their > engagement any day now," which implies the same sort of attitude in > the WW as is often found in the Muggle world. Ron is mocking Percy's > attachment to Crouch by saying they should get married when they're > two men. And then there's Rita's nasty implication that Dumbledore > has a bad interest in Harry (does she actually say unnatural)? This > is more a charge of an adult preying on a child, but in this case > it's a same-sex predatory relationship. > > -m" So who does the homophobic mocking? Dudley who is a bully and who uses any weapon he can against Harry... and Rita Skeeter...gosh she's someone I think we all want to emulate...BUT she is not accusing DD of being gay, she's accusing him of being a child sexual abuser, which is probably one of the worst things any human being can be. (If we assume which I think it likely that that is the meaning of "unnatural".) There was a request for some research about who actually are the child sexual abusers (adults who prey on children most of whom are heterosexual). If you want to become informed, here's the link http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html. Remember Ron ALSO says that Wilkie Twycross is going to pop the question to Hermione any moment now...we all know Ron is immature... he uses the joke BOTH about same sex and opposite sex partnerships.. Susan McGee > From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 23:07:06 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <747575.5778.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178215 Carol wrote: I agree with you. It seems to me that, since the last book came out, JKR has been trying to control the interpretation of her characters and to treat her speculations about the future of her surviving characters (for example, Neville's future wife, who started out to be Luna and is currently Hanah Abbot, or Ron's job, which started out as Auror and then became a partner in George's shop) or her views on her characters' personalities (e.g., the various remarks on Snape, whom she seems to have trouble distinguishing from the chemistry teacher who inspired him). Now we have Dumbledore's unrequited love for Grindelwald, whereas in canon, all we have is an aborted friendship and DD's five-year hesitation in going after Grindelwald. But that's all there is, and the reader is free to posit other (equally uncanonical) explanations for DD's hesitation. If it isn't in the books, it isn't canon. And an author's intentions, or her personal interpretation, should not take precedence over other interpretations that consider the text and only the text (including gaps, contradictions, and ambiguities--I'm not assuming a consistent text with an-always reliable narrator). Sorry, JKR, but I'm capable of interpreting the books without your help, as is everyone else on this list, and I really wish you would just stop giving interviews altogether. Put your energies and imagination into writing another book and leave the Potterverse alone. I'm at a point where I don't even want the encyclopedia. (Read "Death of the Author," JKR. Or if that's too extreme, try "The Intentional Fallacy." Did Jane Austen tell people how to interpret her books? Did the Bronte sisters? Did Herman Melville? Trust your readers, and let your readers trust your text, or determine where it's untrustworthy by comparison to other passages. Carol, taking anything JKR says about her characters and her imagined view of them with more than a grain of salt ***Katie responds: Amen, sister. I wish JKR would just stop talking. It seems like after 10 years of keeping mum, she has a bad case of verbal diarreah. Everything she says makes me wonder if she even wrote these books!! (Just kidding, but really!) I just had a conversation with my mother today about how JKR ruined Snape for us in DH, and how everything she has said about Snape since the book came out just makes it more painful and more unbearable. And now this! I don't CARE who Dumbledore liked, loved, or slept with. It has NOTHING to do with the story. And I'm a big gay rights advocate, always happy to see gay characters...except...she DIDN'T CREATE ONE. All this backpedaling and trying to make us see the characters exactly the way she does is driving me mad. There is absolutely no evidence that Dumbledore was gay or loved Grindelwald. And, much like I feel Snape's story was wrecked by the whole Lily fiasco, I feel Dumbledore is lessened by having him be a lovesick puppy. YUCK. I also feel like if she had wanted to create a gay character, then she should have gone all out and not been afraid to make him gay in canon. Going back and saying it was so, don't make it so. And also, if she wanted to say all of this stuff...she should have said it in the epilogue, and given us some real meaty stuff, not that sickly sweet pap we got stuck with. Grr. I wish she's just shush. 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 minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 23:20:09 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:20:09 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <747575.5778.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178216 ***Katie responds: Amen, sister. I wish JKR would just stop talking. It seems like after 10 years of keeping mum, she has a bad case of verbal diarreah. Everything she says makes me wonder if she even wrote these books!! Just kidding, but really!) Tiffany: I'm typically not a stickler for details, but all the errors & discrepancies I found in DH made me laugh. I don't mind her interviewing style per se, as much as the actual substance of her interviews themselves. It seemed like she put her foot in her mouth a lot during it & couldn't keep things straight with respect to the canon. I took to liking the DD/GG storyline she revealed because I had my doubts about them & some of the best friends in college I have are of the GLBT community. I'm as straight as an arrow myself, but I am very open-minded & always willing to learn something new. From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Oct 22 00:59:13 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:59:13 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > va32h: > > > > Well I concluded a long time ago that the whole "planned in detail > > for 17 years" was nothing but a fan-enhanced myth. She is so > > clearly pulling things out of...well, you know. > Allie: And here I MUST comment because it becomes clear from DH that MANY MANY things were planned in advance, from the time that SS was written: For example: Harry's invisibility cloak - the fact that it exists, that it's the only one of its kind, that is is a Hallow, and that it was in Dumbledore's possession because he was investigating it as a Hallow. (To quote SS: Your father left this in possession before he died. It is time it was returned to you. Use it well.") That completely fits in with JKR hinting on her website that it is significant that DD had the cloak. She knew what it was even then. Grindelwald - DD's legendary duel with Grindelwald is mentioned in the VERY FIRST BOOK, clearly she knew all along that he was signifant. I have NO trouble believing she had planned the Elder Wand back then. There are many more examples but I can't think of them all right now... I don't know why there is such a strong backlash against the author now that the story is finished. Anyone here who thinks they can do better is welcome to go publish their own series of wildly popular stories. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:21:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:21:28 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178218 susanmcgee48176 wrote: > I wonder why it disturbs some people SO much to think that Dumbledore might have made love with Gellert Grindelvald....when it doesn't seem to disturb anyone about Tonks and Lupin? Hmmmmmm... > Carol responds: Lupin and Tonks were adults. Gellert Grindelwald was still sixteen years old (maybe close to seventeen)--underage even by WW standards, and Albus was not yet eighteen. JKR stated that she didn't want Hermione pregnant at fourteen (or some such thing)--it seems that she was trying to avoid encouraging promiscuity among her young readers (many of them are still at the "Kissing! Ewwww!" stage, in any case). (IIRC, the age of consent in England is sixteen, but that does not make teenageers adults in my view.) More important, and more in keeping with my view that what's important is what's in the books, not what JKR says in interviews (DD is both "Machiavellian" and "the epitome of goodness"?), what we see on the page is largely an intellectual attraction between two brilliant boys who want to change the world (and think that their mental and magical superiority qualifies them to run it). To bring in a romantic attraction would, IMO, take away from DD's true desire or true temptation--power. His sexuality has no bearing on his relationship with Harry (or with Snape) or on his actions as headmaster or leader of the Order. Aberforth neither knows nor cares about it. We should not, IMO, let JKR's statements about it interfere with our assessment of events, themes, and characters in the books, including DD and the golden-haired, mischievous spirit of evil that was Grindelwald. (Friendship, BTW, is a form of love, and I see no difference between DD's friendship with Grindelwald and James's for Sirius except that the basis of the latter friendship was not primarily intellectual.) On a sidenote, DD sending his friend an owl in the middle of the night made me think of texting. Only, of course, most text messages don't involve ruling the Muggles and the Muggle-borns "for the greater good.") At any rate, I think this whole thread is taking us away from the key elements of DD's relationship with Grindelwald, including his failure to meet his responsibilities as the guardian of his younger brother and sister, his enormous regret and guilt for his part in Arizna's death, his temptation to power, the perversion of the concept of "the greater good," his initial view of wizards as superior to Muggles (so similar to "Magic Is Might"), his unwillingness to see his friend's failings, and probably others that I've forgotten to list. I doubt very much that DD ever kissed GG or expressed his feelings for him. Certainly, he doesn't do so in the books. It was all about the ideas, all about their future as co-rulers of the WW (and the world?). And, in the end, he's glad that GG, unlike LV, felt and expressed remorse (which leads me to wonder how GG, who murdered so many people, spent eternity). Carol, no doubt showing her age but relieved that there was so little teenage sexuality (aside from some rather too-public snogging) in the HP books From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:31:21 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:31:21 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178219 > Allie: > > And here I MUST comment because it becomes clear from DH that MANY > MANY things were planned in advance, from the time that SS was written: > > For example: > > Harry's invisibility cloak - the fact that it exists, that it's the > only one of its kind, that is is a Hallow, and that it was in > Dumbledore's possession because he was investigating it as a Hallow. > (To quote SS: Your father left this in possession before he died. It > is time it was returned to you. Use it well.") That completely fits > in with JKR hinting on her website that it is significant that DD had > the cloak. She knew what it was even then. > > Grindelwald - DD's legendary duel with Grindelwald is mentioned in the > VERY FIRST BOOK, clearly she knew all along that he was signifant. I > have NO trouble believing she had planned the Elder Wand back then. > Prep0strus: I don't doubt many things were planned from the beginning, but I don't see your examples being any kind of evidence. Maybe it's because I think the hallows weren't very well thought out. It seemed to me, even as I was reading it the first time, as a device she thought of later and fit the fact that Harry had an invisibility cloak into that structure later on. The cloak itself served a fun separate purpose over the other books - it's presence does not mean that she had a specific plan for it in the end. The same could be said for anything - if the firebolt had turned out special, or Hedwig, or any number of things that DIDN'T turn out that way. There is no reason JKR couldn't have adapted something in the story to a purpose she thought of later on. The same goes for Grindelwald, and as for the Elder wand... well, I think that part of the story is the one that makes me most believe it was NOT planned out. If a really convoluted plotline involving wand ownership rules was going to be one of the primary forces in the final book, wouldn't we have heard about the wand rules earlier on? Wouldn't that have been one of the first lessons taught in SS/PS? Wouldn't it be something people were aware of? There was a whole war that happened not that long ago - losing wands or controlling others' wands surely must have occurred. And yet, we the readers only become privy to this information in the final book when it becomes pertinent. That's something we should have had understanding of long before if it were truly planned out in that much detail. And, on a slightly separate note... these people need to come up with more wand related magic. I mean, I'd certainly want my wand on some kind of string tied to my belt so that I couldn't really lose it even if I dropped it. I'm sure magic can cause that effect as well. Everybody drops, loses, and relinquishes the most important item in the world a bit too often for my sake. When I read them, I guessed Ginny/Harry and Hermione/Ron were planned out from the first book. I bet that Dumbledore was always going to die before the end, and I could even buy Harry having a piece of Voldy's soul in him. But the whole Hallows thing felt so rushed and awkward, it's hard for me to believe that they were planned out. And fitting things together can be done just as easily (maybe even easier, if possibly more awkwardly) backwards as forwards. I think it's very hard to have concrete evidence of any real plan. It's just what we see in it and trust in JKR. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From wynnleaf at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:33:04 2007 From: wynnleaf at yahoo.com (wynnleaf fair) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8941.31479.qm@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178220 delwynmarch wrote: I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned some of the real problems with the matter of DD having been in love with GG, and having "protected" GG for so long because of this love. (huge snips) See, that's the problem I have with JKR revealing that DD is "gay": the canon doesn't support at all DD being gay (ie attracted to grown men), but it amply supports DD being ephebophile (ie attracted to teenage boys). Do I believe that DD was ephebophile? No. First because either I believe JKR who says "gay", or I believe what I see in the canon which says, well, nothing at all, and thus implicitely classic heterosexual. And second because it's just too yucky to see things that way, and frankly I don't want to be on Rita Skeeter's side on anything. But do I believe that the canon supports ephebophilia far more than homosexuality? You bet. Celibate ephebophilia (ie: I don't think DD ever sexually acted on it, at least once he became an adult), but ephebophilia nonetheless. And that stinks. And there's another thing that stinks. Look at what DD's love for GG made him do: it made him wait for decades before confronting evil, allowing countless innocents to be harmed and killed. How does this compare to DD's (and JKR's) message about Love and the Power of Love? DD keeps telling Harry that it's his ability to love which will eventually allow him to beat LV. But what did DD's ability to love do to him? It *prevented* him from fighting evil. DD had to set his love aside in order to be able to beat evil. How come the rules are so different in his case? Ah, yes: his was a gay love. Apparently, heterosexual love and motherly love fortify one against evil, but gay love weakens one. All of you out there who are so happy about JKR making DD gay really should reconsider what it implies about DD and about gay love: it's not at all what you might think. wynnleaf I think these are very legitimate points. While I can understand many people appreciating JKR revealing that a major character in the books is (was) gay, it is *very* problematic that she revealed that *after* the final book in which Dumbledore is revealed as having so many, many deep weaknesses. Suddenly her revelations can't help but be connected with his weaknesses. And what if JKR had "outed" Dumbledore as gay from the first? Wouldn't readers have voiced real concerns about this focus Dumbledore seemed to have on young men? On his lack of adult partners? I've seen many fans comment on Slughorn's interest in attractive young men and have wondered if that was part of his initial interest in students like Tom Riddle. Imagine if we'd know Dumbledore was gay all along. How would we have seen his outspoken love of Harry at the end of OOTP, especially without any countering picture of Dumbledore having loved an adult? Do I think JKR meant for Dumbledore to be primarily interested in young men? No, probably she didn't. But I agree that canon -- if it leans any direction for Dumbledore's sexuality -- leans more toward an interest in young men than anything. wynnleaf __________________________________________________ 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:33:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:33:18 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <747575.5778.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178221 > ***Katie responds: > Amen, sister. I wish JKR would just stop talking. It seems like after 10 years of keeping mum, she has a bad case of verbal diarreah. Everything she says makes me wonder if she even wrote these books!! (Just kidding, but really!) > Alla: I do not understand this at all. It is not like JKR went on the stage and out of the blue started screaming OMG Dumbledore is gay. I mean, I do understand your view that I snipped. Sure, I would prefer it being in the books as well, but she was ASKED the question about DD's love life. It is not like she even said she wanted to give a statement or something. What was she supposed to do, say it is a secret or something? She said she always envisioned DD to be gay, so what if she honestly found no place to mention it in the books? Why should she keep it a secret now and avoid the question? Again, it is not like she went to news and said, AWWWWW, I have ajuicy juicy bit of info to tell you guys. I think that if this question was not asked, we may have never knew that IMO of course. It is everybody's right to not consider her interviews as canon of course. I used to take them as secondary canon no questions asked, I am more cautious now simply because yeah, I saw too many inconsistencies in the interviews and what came out in DH. But I still take an unquestionable fact ( for me obviously) as a secondary canon, especially when it explains (IMO) so much of DD motivations. Let me stress again, I WOULD prefer it to be in the books, but I think that since as somebody said somewhere else JKR is pretty much the first author whose books achieved such popularity to out major character is gay, I like it a lot. Do I think that maybe she did not want to let the people who burn the books more reasons to burn the books maybe played a part in her decision to not say so in the books? ABSOLUTELY and if it is true, I cannot say that I can judge her too harshly. But do I honestly think that the possibility that JKR did not mention Dumbledore's sexuality because she just found no place for it plotwise, while giving vague hints? Yes, I do. I do not remember Minerva going around and saying "I am lesbian or I am straight" or ANY of the teachers for that matter. But obviously I do wish she would mention once or twice gay or lesbian kids kissing in the background - as Magpie, I think said, to treat it casually, etc. JMO, Alla From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 01:42:26 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:42:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Other New News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0710211842i5baa566dsa1251a6cb6bed60e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178222 Prep0strus: And I'm wondering if it's just a slip of the tongue, or how it came out at first, but... why would James support Sirius, but not Lupin? Lupin was impoverished, but James and Lily and Sirius all got to live off of James' gold? It makes me wonder something that wasn't answered - what was Peter doing? Doesn't sound like he'd be a 'full-time fighter'... which means he might be the only Marauder with a job. That, or impoverished, or living off the Potter gold as well? Very strange. Debbie: This *doesn't* make any sense, but the transcript on the Leaky Cauldron is a bit rough, and it looks as though a word might have been left out: "So that's what they did, they left school. James has gold, enough to support [Lupin] Sirius and Lily. So I suppose they lived off a private income. But they were full-time fighters, that's what they did, until Lily fell pregnant with Harry." In addition to being rough, JKR's answers were, as many off-the-cuff comments are, not very well crafted and as such they are capable of varying interpretations. Prep0strus: Also, why would the Potters and Sirius be in the Order at any time that Lupin wasn't? Dumbledore started and ran the Order, didn't he? So there shouldn't have been a lag between the others becoming a member and him becoming a member. It's very strange to me. Debbie: If this is what JKR said, it is inconsistent with canon. Lupin is in the photograph of the original Order that Mad-Eye shows Harry in OOP. In fact, the whole plot of POA would make no sense if Lupin wasn't in the order, because Sirius made Peter Pettigrew the Secret Keeper on the assumption that Lupin was the spy. If Lupin wasn't in the Order, he wouldn't have had the kind of information that Pettigrew passed on to Voldemort. Accordingly, I think JKR was saying that Sirius, Lily and James didn't have regular jobs because they worked for the Order full-time, and that the additional explanation for Lupin was to point out that unlike the others he was unemployable. Debbie whose longtime refusal to put any credence in interview statements has been utterly vindicated [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 01:49:42 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:49:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <8941.31479.qm@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <8941.31479.qm@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178223 Penhaligon here: Can you please explain how you possibly arrived at this conclusion? Thanks, Panhandle > delwynmarch wrote: > See, that's the problem I have with JKR revealing that DD is "gay": > the canon doesn't support at all DD being gay (ie attracted to grown > men), but it amply supports DD being ephebophile (ie attracted to > teenage boys). -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:51:35 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:51:35 -0000 Subject: Authorial Backlash (was: Other News) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178224 > Allie: > > > > I don't know why there is such a strong backlash against the author > now that the story is finished. Anyone here who thinks they can do > better is welcome to go publish their own series of wildly popular > stories. Mike: If I may, I found the actual books very entertaining. I have often commented here on how JKR pulled various and numerous threads through the entire series to my delight. My favorite being the Vanishing Cabinet. It's JKR's interview comments that I dislike, both pre- and post-DH. In her zeal to keep her audience in the dark, she has made statements about the plot-lines that she has subsequently contradicted in canon. Broken record here, but the most obvious was the whole Secret Keeper thing with regards to 12 GP and Dumbledore. And if she had just not said anything about it, there would have been no contradiction in canon, because she did not define the spell in canon to the detail that she did in trying to explain the situation in some interview. It's the same thing with all these post-DH "revelations" that she keeps coming out with. Contrary to "clearing up" some canon questions, they seem to either muddy the waters worse or bring in things that she did not put in the books. I find that very annoying. If it was important, she shopuld have included it. If it wasn't, then leave it alone and let us form our own opinion. I don't feel I need the author to explain her work. And I don't really care what she was thinking when she wrote some passage, character, or plot-line. If I can't figure it out, shame on me. If she didn't write it well enough for me to figure out, it's too late now. I'll interpret it as best as I can, throw out the things that don't work for me and maybe add in a few that makes the story come together better for me. I don't need her help in determining what those things might be, thank you very much. I don't ask anyone to agree with my interpretations, even if I do post them here for comment, criticism, or rebuttal. I like to solve the mysteries in this series, and I feel there are still some left to solve. I will be posting on those, as well as commenting on others. JKR didn't solve all the mysteries in her series and that's just fine. I rather enjoy doing it myself. And she has had her chance, now it's my/our turn. If it wasn't important enough to her story to solve in the books, then leave it to our imaginations and interpretations. Stop trying to direct out discussions with these new revelations. Or don't, I don't care because I'm not counting ANYTHING ever said outside of the books as canon. Your mileage may vary, that's just the approach that makes the most sense for me. Mike From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 01:44:31 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:44:31 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned some of the real > problems with the matter of DD having been in love with GG, > and having "protected" GG for so long because of this love. > GG was very young when DD fell in love with him. If I'm not > mistaken, he was an older teen, just like DD. He was not an > *adult* yet. He was also very handsome. Hmmmm...I AM happy about JKR says that DD is gay. I would be outraged and stricken if JKR were to say that DD was fixated on young boys or attracted to young boys. They are, of course, two separate things. I do not believe that canon supports the idea that DD was attracted to and spied upon adolescent boys and was romantically or sexually infatuated with them. There is no evidence for this fact. I'm interested in the fact that after you carefully lay out this argument about how canon supports DD as fixated on adolescent boys you then say that that was what Rita Skeeter (a known distorter of the truth) would say and you don't agree. It's great that we agree, then! The canon does not support Albus Dumbledore being fixated on teenage boys. It does not support him being a pervert or a child sexual abuser. I do become concerned when some people jump from the announcement that DD is gay to the idea that he must be a pervert or someone who secretly yearns after youth. I think it's connected to the mistaken idea that it is gay men or lesbians who molest children or youth. That of course is not true. J.K. Rowling stated that Albus Dumbledore fell in love with GG. They were both the same or around the same age. It was an equal relationship with someone of the same age (if in fact they had a relationship, we don't know). We don't know if DD ever had another partner or lover. J.K. Rowling doesn't say. He, of course, could have. We do know that DD cared for and protected the children of Hogwarts to the best of his ability. We don't know that he never confronted Tom Riddle. We do know he spent his life fighting Tom Riddle. Despite being in love with GG, Dumbledore defeated him in battle and had him sent to prison for the rest of his life. Yes, he delayed can one imagine going into mortal battle with someone a) you had been in love with and b) someone who reminded you of the worst mistakes of your own life? We don't know that Sirius was never punished. As Snape said, James was saving Sirius as well as Severus. Sirius endangered Severus, but Severus was rescued. So this canon support of Dumbledore as someone who is fixated on young boys seems to evaporate. Susan McGee From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 22 02:11:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:11:30 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178226 > susanmcgee48176 wrote: > > > I wonder why it disturbs some people SO much to think that > Dumbledore might have made love with Gellert Grindelvald....when it > doesn't seem to disturb anyone about Tonks and Lupin? Hmmmmmm... va32h: What aspect of Tonks/Lupin is supposed to be disturbing? Anyway, as to Dumbledore being gay, I suppose I am neither horrified nor thrilled. It's an interesting tidbit about his character but looking back over the series, I can't think of anything I would have interpreted differently at the time, knowing Dumbledore was gay. I guess it does offer an additional motivation for Dumbledore's reluctance to challenge Grindelwald for so long, but the reason given in DH was satisfactory to me so I didn't necessarily *need* that info. And we have so many examples of close male friendships in the series (Sirius and James, Sirius and Lupin, Harry and Ron, even Malfoy and Crabbe & Goyle!) that I would have taken any closeness between Dumbledore and Grindelwald to be of the same variety. Perhaps one of the reasons Dumbledore trusted Snape so absolutely was because Dumbledore had also loved briefly yet deeply? Although it is rather sad that both Dumbledore and Snape had one great love and then a lifetime of loneliness afterward. On the whole, it would appear that most of the HP characters meet the love of their lives between the ages of 11 and 16 and if something goes awry in that relationship they never get over it! It does not bother me that Dumbledore's sexuality was not mentioned in the series, since it is, after all, written from Harry's perspective and most teenagers are completely uninterested in the sex lives of their parental figures. I'm sort of more intrigued by this Neville-marries-Hannah and they live over the Leaky Cauldron business. That's sort of odd. Bit of a commute for Neville, unless the new Headmaster of Hogwarts makes an exception so he can Apparate to work each day or Floo into the grounds. Overall though, I really feel that the bare-bones epilogue was a wonderful gift to the readers (and as critical as I've been about DH I have always said I liked the epilogue!). It's very sparseness allowed us to fill in the details however we liked. I wish she'd have kept it that way. va32h From heidi at heidi8.com Mon Oct 22 02:24:19 2007 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:24:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1193019863.1F32E074@bc12.dngr.org> No: HPFGUIDX 178227 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:11 pm, va32h wrote: > > What aspect of Tonks/Lupin is supposed to be disturbing? > Before HBP came out, there were some in fandom who were vehemently against any romantic relationship that was "intergenerational" or 'worse', student/teacher. While Remus wasn't Tonks's professor at Hogwarts, one of his classmates (Snape) was, and had Dumbledore given him the DADA job, say, four years earlier, he would have been Tonks's teacher. And they are different generations, separate and apart from anything else. I'm not sure if that's what the earlier poster was thinking of, but it's possible? - heidi From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 22 02:27:26 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:27:26 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > What aspect of Tonks/Lupin is supposed to be disturbing? Supposed by whom? The author didn't intend it to be disturbing, but there are a lot of posts about how it doesn't matter what the author intended, only what actually got onto the page (after the editing process). I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks to me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted to marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. He never seemed particularly happy to be with her in public, gave no impression that he was happy to be getting laid regularly, tried to run away with Harry as an excuse to run away from her pregnancy. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 22 02:35:56 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:35:56 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > > > What aspect of Tonks/Lupin is supposed to be disturbing? > > Supposed by whom? The author didn't intend it to be disturbing, but > there are a lot of posts about how it doesn't matter what the author > intended, only what actually got onto the page (after the editing > process). > > I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks to > me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted to > marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got > dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. He never seemed > particularly happy to be with her in public, gave no impression that > he was happy to be getting laid regularly, tried to run away with > Harry as an excuse to run away from her pregnancy. > va32h: Supposed by the person I quoted. Actually I agree with everything you've said about the Tonks/Lupin relationship. Although I don't find the *idea* of Tonks/Lupin disturbing (just the execution. I am quite fond of Remus and his behavior in DH disappointed me greatly.) and my understanding of the post I quoted was that the idea of Tonks/Lupin was or was not as disturbing as the idea of Grindelwald/Dumbledore. And I couldn't figure out if that poster thought either pairing was or was not disturbing, to be honest. I suppose it could be the age thing, as the post before yours suggested. va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 02:38:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:38:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178230 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Supposed by whom? The author didn't intend it to be disturbing > I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks to > me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted to > marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got > dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. Alla: I honestly wanted to give Lupin/ Tonks a chance after HBP. I really did. The fact that I grew to like my Sirius/ Lupin ( not as much as Sirius/ Snape mind you) did not mean that I did not want Lupin to be happy. I kept telling myself, oh no, no he just deludes himself and he is just too afraid to give himself and Tonks a chance, insecure, etc. Here comes DH. Lupin basically **runnig away** from Tonks, till Harry yells at him, IMO. And Tonks as always runs after him. I saw no great love there, when Lupin would rather be with Trio than with his pregnant wife. OOOOOOOOO. Duh Alla. Another unrequited love in the series? Tonks of Lupin maybe? Maybe? JMO, Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 02:42:26 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:42:26 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178231 > Perhaps because of the largely young audience of the printed books, JKR > didn't want to be that explicit in the black and white text of DH. For > those of us who go deeper, there is more to be told. The topic of > orientation at whatever age would not be inappropriate, but perhaps > playing this down for a wider general readership was appropriate. > > Ideas? > > afn > lizzyben: I think that this revelation actually makes a lot of sense for DD's character & it does help explain his motivation regarding Grindewald. And, to me, it also makes Dumbledore seem more human and sympathetic. That's why it should have been included in the novel itself. I do believe that JKR was a little nervous about including a gay relationship because of the backlash from conservatives, but if she truly thinks it's important enough to tell readers, she should've had the courage to include it in DH. DH is already rather inappropriate for young children, IMO, what with the torture, violence, sadism, etc. I'm not sure what it says about our society if DD's orientation is more controversial! The entire Potterverse was extremely "heteronormative", w/all the characters getting married at the end, no gay couples, JKR shooting down the Sirius/Lupin ship, etc. so I'm glad that she's at least included one gay character - it's better than nothing. But still, if she wanted to send a message, IMO there could've been actual couples within the novel, or a gay character who's, um, not evil. Like other people have pointed out, it sends a bit of a mixed message that the only "gay couple" ends so tragically, or that they're both portrayed as quasi-evil by the end of DH. But mixed messages are sort of par for the course now. Whatever conflicting messages it might send, IMO it does make sense for DD's character & was heavily implied within the novel itself. But the Dumbledore/Grindewald ship amuses me mostly because they seem to have so much in common - brilliant, talented, interested in world domination. I think they're one of the most plausible ships in canon! There were a lot of things that made me happy in this interview; JKR saying that Snape found peace at the end & that he got a portrait, that Neville married & found happiness. And of course a boatload of Flints (Leaky Cauldron), which don't usually bother me. JKR was winning me back, until this statement: "So you ask what lessons, I suppose. The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it's one of the reasons that some people don't like the books" :headdesk: :headdesk: Ow. Anyways, that just stunned me. I can't belive she really implied that anyone who doesn't like the messages of the books is bigoted & intolerant, or threatened by her controversial anti-Nazi stance. lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 03:03:44 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:03:44 -0000 Subject: Slytherins / Slughorn / Ron / put-outer / Deskpig / Seven Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178232 > Amanda: > Also another thing that I did not think of til right now was, the way that they separated the seven Harrys. It was weird that they had placed Hermione and Ron with well established wizards, ( I mean not as bumbling) . They put Harry with Hagrid - did that seem a little off to anyone else? Zara: No, not to me. The decision not to have Harry on a broom seemed logical to me. Also, I don't agree with the characterization of Hagrid as less competent for this mission, compared to a lot of the competition for the job. Moody, sure, but Moody probably drew fire for just that reason. Kingsley, maybe, but Harry hardly knows him. I see no reason to suppose anyone else there would have been a better choice. Hagrid is extremely loyal, devoted to Harry, and he is a good man in a fight - his giant blood gives him a certain amount of immunity to spell damage that could have come in handy. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 22 03:33:54 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:33:54 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > GG was very young when DD fell in love with him. If I'm not mistaken,he was an older teen, just like DD. He was not an *adult* yet. He was also very handsome. va32h: But neither was Dumbledore. There's nothing untoward about two teenagers finding each other attractive. But I gather you are going for some sort of Humbert Humbert scenario where Dumbledore is fixated on a certain age because of the nature of his first love? > We now know, according to the interview, that DD dissimulated the true reason he waited for so long to go after GG. > > Now, let me remind you of another boy. > > Tom Riddle was an extremely handsome boy during his Hogwarts years. >We know that DD knew that there was something off about Tom, even >before Tom set foot in Hogwarts. We also know that DD knew that Tom >must somehow be behind all the nastiness happening at Hogwarts those >years,including the murder of a student. And yet, DD didn't tell >anybody* what he knew and suspected about Tom. He also failed to >confront Tom directly at any time. > > See the similarities? va32h: Well no, actually. Dumbledore suspected Tom regarding the basilisk, but did not know for certain, and it's very much Dumbledore's nature to give people the benefit of the doubt. Also, Tom Riddle was very well liked by Armando Dippet (Dumbledore's superior at the time) so I'm not sure how much weight would have been given to Dumbledore's nebulous suspicions. Dumbledore did speak to Tom directly - but in that Dumbledore way of trying to get the guilty party to voluntarily fess up. > There's also the case of Sirius Black. Sirius, while in Hogwarts, > deliberately sent another student to his death, but he was never > seriously punished for that. Is it a coincidence then that > Sirius happened to be another extremely handsome youth? va32h: Except that Snape didn't die, and we aren't really certain that Sirius actually thought Snape was going to die. Nor do we know if or how Sirius was punished. It isn't specifically mentioned that Sirius was not punished at all, was it? And I suppose I could be flip and point out that Sirius and Tom were both brunettes, whereas Gellert was a blonde, so clearly Dumbledore prefers blondes. But it isn't flip to point out that Dumbledore allowed the adult Snape to treat Harry and Neville rather badly without any repercussions that we know of. So does that mean Dumbleore had a crush on the adult Snape too? I doubt it. > If you add on top of all this the facts that: > > 1- We've never heard of DD having ever loved a man, any man, any > *adult* man. > > 2- DD deliberately chose to spend his life at Hogwarts. Around > teenagers. Lots and lots of teenagers. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. > Compared to how many single adult men? > > 3- We know that DD sometimes goes *invisibly* around the castle at night. va32h: We've never heard of Dumbledore brushing his teeth or taking a bath either, but I'm sure he did. (We do know he went to the bathroom at least once!) Where in the course of Harry's story would it have been logical to introduce Dumbleore's adult relationships? I won't even address the other two points because they are just too offensive IMO. > Now where does that leave Harry? What do we know of DD's feelings for > Harry? Well, he told them to us himself, didn't he? He said that he > had come to "care" for Harry, that he didn't want LV to know that > Harry and DD were "more" than student and teacher, and so on. And > let's not forget DD's tear when Harry said that he was "DD's man, > through and through": what prompted those tears, Harry's expressed > feelings of loyalty, or the resonance that those words might have had > with some romantic dream on the part of DD? va32h: Dumbledore's feelings for Harry are paternal. They are so blatantly paternal (IMO of course) that I can't imagine how anyone could read them otherwise! Dumbledore's whole speech at the end of OoTP about Harry being too young to know his fate, wanting him to be happy, not wanting to burden him with adult responsibilities - everything about that interaction screams father-son to me. > And there's another thing that stinks. Look at what DD's love for GG > made him do: it made him wait for decades before confronting evil, > allowing countless innocents to be harmed and killed. How does this > compare to DD's (and JKR's) message about Love and the Power of Love? > DD keeps telling Harry that it's his ability to love which will > eventually allow him to beat LV. But what did DD's ability to love do > to him? It *prevented* him from fighting evil. DD had to set his love > aside in order to be able to beat evil. How come the rules are so > different in his case? Ah, yes: his was a gay love. Apparently, > heterosexual love and motherly love fortify one against evil, but gay > love weakens one. va32h: I don't think it was decades was it? I thought DH said it was five years between Grindelwald's rise to power and the duel. You know I always thought Dumbledore was too hard on himself about the Grindelwald thing. Why was it Dumbledore's sole responsibility to bring down Gellert? Sure, Albus was the most talented wizard of his day, but he wasn't the only talented wizard. He wasn't a politician or a warrior, he was a schoolteacher. By the same token, I was irked that everyone in the Order seemed to be waiting for Harry to come along and save them too. But I digress. I don't think Dumbledore had to "set his love aside to defeat evil". I see it as Dumbledore recognizing a higher love (an agape sort of love of humanity) above his long-ago affection for an old friend. Sort of the same way Lily had to set aside her affection for Snape once it seemed clear to her that he was heading down the wrong path. Lily was able to make that choice at a much younger age than Dumbledore, but then Dumbledore never denied being a sentimental old fool. va32h From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 03:39:15 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:39:15 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes /Re: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > I never predicted Dumbledore was gay but now that I think about it I > should have because there were hints. For example, Dumbledore never married. True we are never specifically told that any of the other teachers had spouses either, but we know much more about Dumbledore and his back story than that of any other teacher; if he had a wife we would have heard. > > And when I read about his short but very intense "friendship" with the young and beautiful Grindelwald I should have been suspicious. > > I should have noticed in the very first book that Dumbledore's dress code was a bit over the top even by wizard standards. Even Lockhart didn't seem to have as many outrageously colorful robes as Dumbledore did. In HBP we see a young Dumbledore "drawing many curious glances due to the flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet that he was wearing". > Even Harry who had seen many wizard fashions by now was surprised and couldn't help remarking "Nice suit, sir". Tonks: Just because a person doesn???t marry doesn???t mean that they are gay. This really annoys me. I have many friends who are heterosexual and have either by choice or by chance, not married. It is so annoying when they tell me how many times people ask them if they are gay. Why is it so odd? I think unmarried straight people are the last group to get their day in court regarding discrimination! Sex is just not important for a lot of people, believe it or not. When I read about DD having an intense friendship with Grindelwald, sex was the last thing on my mine. But from what I read here, it was the first thing on the mind of many readers. Maybe that is because so many of the readers are young and youth and sexual thoughts seem to go together. To me DD just had a close friend, a best friend who was as intelligent as he and had the same interest. We all are drawn to people like that. We even ???love??? them if they are a best friend. That doesn???t mean we are ???in love??? with them. Frankly being ???in love??? means nothing in the long run. But truly ???loving??? a best friend, now that would make a difference in how difficult it would be to fight that person later. As to DD???s cool way of dressing. Gosh, can???t a straight guy have some class or artistic expression? Can't he express his artistic flair, his non-comformist air? Talk about stereotypes, there are many stereotypes about gay people being mentioned here that are not correct. The gay men I know don???t dress in a flamboyant way. True they do have better taste that some straight guys who wear dirty torn tee shirts and guzzle beer, but they have class, not weird clothing. An artistic person might wear weird clothing, like Luna???s father, and he isn???t gay. All of the flamboyant dressers, both male and female, that I know or have known are not gay either. Tonks_op From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 04:42:04 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:42:04 -0000 Subject: All planned out (WAS Re: Other New News) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178235 > Allie: > > And here I MUST comment because it becomes clear from DH that MANY > MANY things were planned in advance, from the time that SS was written: > > For example: > > Harry's invisibility cloak > Grindelwald I have NO trouble believing she had planned the > Elder Wand back then. > There are many more examples but I can't think of them all right now... zgirnius: I would add, H/G and R/Hr. Ginny Weasley is the first witch of his generation Harry ever meets, while Ron and Hermione begin their bickering on the Hogwarts Express. I did not attach much meaning to the first of these occurences (but apparently it is common to introduce the eventual love interest ot the hero/heoine in this way, and once someone pointed this out to me, I could think of other examples), but I suspected the second SHIP from their first encounter. I would also add, the Secret Keeper switch. Sirius Black comes up in Chapter 1; Scabbers on the Hogwarts Express is targeted by a spell to turn him yellow (for cowardice, naturally), of all possible colors. And, of course, the one dearest to my heart: Snape's backstory. Much was made of importance of the three Potions facts Snape introduced in his first lesson in PS/SS. We saw Wolfsbane in PoA and bezoars in HBP, but no one ever used the Draught of Living Death as anything but a classroom exercise, despite some really fine fan theories about the role it would play in DH. So what was it doing there? Its named (in PS/SS, we learn more in HBP) components are asphodel and wormwood. Asphodel is a plant in the lily family, which in Greek myth is what grows in the fields of the land of the dead. It comes up as a symbol of death and memorial sorrow in literature and the "language of flowers". Wormwood is a plant noted for its bitterness. And together, these things produce something called the Draught of Living Death. Snape's life story, in a single recipe. Rowling looks this sort of thing up - Aconite (wolfsbane) is so named in RL because it was believed to protect against werewolves. Bezoars are not something she made up. Rue is used in traditional herbal medicine as a remedy after poisoning (as for Ron in HBP). Dittany is likewise believed to help prevent scarring. So no, I do not think this was a coincidence. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 22 05:42:17 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:42:17 EDT Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178236 > ***Katie responds: > Amen, sister. I wish JKR would just stop talking. It seems like after 10 years of keeping mum, she has a bad case of verbal diarreah. Everything she says makes me wonder if she even wrote these books!! (Just kidding, but really!) > Alla: I do not understand this at all. It is not like JKR went on the stage and out of the blue started screaming OMG Dumbledore is gay. I mean, I do understand your view that I snipped. Sure, I would prefer it being in the books as well, but she was ASKED the question about DD's love life. It is not like she even said she wanted to give a statement or something. What was she supposed to do, say it is a secret or something? Julie: I am 100% with you, Alla. I don't quite get this, and I am one who was disappointed by certain aspects of DH, and annoyed by some of the inconsistencies. But I still don't think it's beholden upon JKR to shut up when fans ask her questions. If fans didn't want to know, they wouldn't be showing up in droves or vying for tickets to her appearances. And, yes, while some fans want to know how JKR sees her characters, I do know others prefer to stick with only what was presented in the books and draw their own conclusions. The easy solution is to ignore the interviews. But I don't think it's fair to expect JKR not to answer questions about characters she created, or to denigrate her for doing so. She cannot, nor do I think she is trying to force anyone to see the characters only and exactly as she sees them. That is something of a given when you consider how tolerant she is of fan fiction. (Believe me, many authors do not accept that kind of infringement on *their* characters and universe, no way, no how.) BTW, I think if fans of that time had asked Jane Austen questions about how she saw her characters and motivations, she would have answered them. To me that isn't "telling" readers how to interpret them, that is telling readers how *she* (the author) inteprets them. Jane Austin or Charles Dickens might even have written "encyclopedias" about their characters/stories had such been requested by their fans. Why wouldn't they? I'll say that I don't care that much about a Potterverse encyclopedia. I might not even buy it or read it. But many fans *have* expressed great enthusiasm over the concept, and if JKR likes the idea herself and decides to do it, why not? Lots of people will probably buy it and enjoy it, and more power to them. Julie, agreeing that we are all free to interpret fiction as we see it, but also believing the author is equally free to interpret her own fiction, particularly to those who ask. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lexac at mail.com Mon Oct 22 07:27:19 2007 From: lexac at mail.com (Lexa_C) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:27:19 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178237 David Gunn wrote: > > I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that > Dumbledore was gay. You are not alone. My reaction and that of many (though certainly not all) other queer fans I've seen can most politely be summed up as "Whatever, lady. Too little, too late. Particularly with the trunkful of questionable baggage you've hoisted onto his back." To out Dumbledore at this point drags in a whole lot of problematic issues including making him several types of ugly cliche: the Dead Gay Character, gay love as wrong, doomed and tragic, the "good" gay man who lives an asexual life alone. Add to that, I'm extremely disturbed that the single instance of gay love we see in the books is destructive and something to be disavowed, rather than protective/transformative/redemptive, the way love is more generally set up to be in the Potterverse cosmology. Plus, it will LITERALLY kill your family members (not just figuratively, as in "This will just KILL your sister/father/grandmother/Aunt Myrtle if they find out"). Do I think JKR actively set out to give those kinds of messages about gayness? No more than I think that many books/movies/television with questionable racial issues set out to be racist when they're attempting the well-meaning "colorblindness" that many people have been taught is supposed to be a virtue. "It doesn't MATTER that he's black/Latino/ gay/whatever. It's just a storyline we wanted to do. And isn't it great that we gave the black/Latino/gay/whatever guy such a great storyline?" Well. No. And it does matter. Because you're not writing in a vacuum. And when you do THAT particular storyline with THAT particular character, the cultural and historical baggage that comes along with his blackness/Latino-ness/gayness/whateverness makes the result questionable and potentially offensive. I realize that the Doomed, Tragic Teenaged Love of a Lifetime aspect of Grindelwald gives even more resonance to Dumbledore's interaction with Snape, and that they now share the Doomed Tragic Teenaged Love of a Lifetime .. thing - the difference is that Snape is not the only heterosexual we see in the books and he doesn't have to carry the weight of all heterosexuality in the wizarding world on his shoulders. There's plenty of other heterosexual characters, so Snape acts out merely one facet of a complex view of heterosexuality. (Well, nominally complex. I'm not going to get started on that, right now.) > I think Rowling is throwing the gay community a bone, > and then expects us to be grateful for it. She's going to have a while to wait, at least from my perspective. The way this was done makes it look cheap and manipulative, IMO, and not terribly sensitive to some very real issues of gay character portrayal. My reaction is to want her to stop. patronizing. me. David: >> Why can't there be a main character who just happens >> to be gay? Petra, with an evil grin: >There is. See Albus Dumbledore. His being gay just happens to >be a footnote in the Harry Potter canon. His being gay as a footnote is not the same as him just happening to be gay. If he just happened to be gay, he would BE gay in the books, not merely as an apocryphal afterthought - it's just that he would be gay without his character being ABOUT him being gay. Just as Dean is black without his character being about being black. But we know he's black. It's in the books. We're told he's black by JKR's descriptions of him. She doesn't leave it up to us to guess that he's black, because the fact is, when you don't actively show a character's race or ethnicity - or sexuality - the general assumption becomes that he's not-black, not-gay, not-"Other." As a case in point, I give you Blaise Zabini (thank you, HP fandom, for providing me with the best example, ever, of why "colorblind" writing doesn't work). If Dumbledore being gay is truly supposed to be a non-issue, why isn't he openly gay anywhere in the books? And I don't believe the arguments that it's not relevant to the plot or that Harry wouldn't notice. We know that Ron is heterosexual, that Hermione is, that Ginny is, Dean, Lavender, Percy, Bill, Fleur, Remus, Tonks, Hagrid, Snape, Sirius, that Teddy freakin' Lupin is, for god's sake. What's the relevance of all that? And Harry notices it all, or we wouldn't know it. All those charcters, and more, get to BE heterosexual in ways that Dumbledore does not get to BE gay - nor does any other character. Nowhere in these books can she have a single out queer character, Dumbledore or anyone else? Nowhere AT ALL, does Harry ever notice any kind of queerness? Sorry, I'm not buying the argument that Dumbledore's sexuality isn't in the books or shouldn't be there because it shouldn't matter. Not when there's an entire litany of characters who are shown being heterosexual while queerness is invisible, and the single face of gayness that we're given - after the fact, in an extra-textual interview - has his queerness so elided within the text that it can be written off as eccentricity. Not when Dumbledore was outed in such a way that allows people to pick and choose whether they want to believe it or not, in a way that some readers might never even know about it. Too little, too late, too questionably portrayed. -Lexa From bamf505 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 08:07:31 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes /Re: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5785.65075.qm@web31510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178238 --- Tonks wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > > > I never predicted Dumbledore was gay but now that > I think about it > I > should have because there were hints. For > example, Dumbledore > never married. > > > > And when I read about his short but very intense > "friendship" with > the young and beautiful Grindelwald I should have > been suspicious. > > > > I should have noticed in the very first book that > Dumbledore's > dress code was a bit over the top even by wizard > standards. > Tonks: > Just because a person doesnt marry doesnt mean > that they are gay. > > When I read about DD having an intense friendship > with Grindelwald, > sex was the last thing on my mine. But from what I > read here, it was > the first thing on the mind of many readers. Maybe > that is because > so many of the readers are young and youth and > sexual thoughts seem > to go together. To me DD just had a close friend, a > best friend who > was as intelligent as he and had the same interest. > We all are drawn > to people like that. We even love them if they > are a best friend. > That doesnt mean we are in love with them. > Frankly being in > love means nothing in the long run. But truly > loving a best > friend, now that would make a difference in how > difficult it would > be to fight that person later. > > As to DDs cool way of dressing. Gosh, cant a > straight guy have > some class or artistic expression? > > Tonks_op > > > bamf: I think my problems with JKR's talking is best summed up by Tonks_op. She took a character that was unique, eccentric and mysterious, and now all that made the character unique, eccentric and mysterious are chalked up to DD being gay. I chalk his clothing choices up to age, not sexual preference. There are many ways she could have answered the question that was asked. A simple, "What do you think" would have sufficed. Heavens knows she gave us enough vague answers BEFORE the books came out. There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 03:50:15 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:50:15 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Gay Potter Character?/I'm so happy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C1DF7.5060508@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178239 [Magpie: I've removed my comments vis-a-vis homosexuality to a private e-mail since I think they're pretty much off-topic here] LCJ: > Whatever your personal views on homosexuality, the fact remains that > it IS a controversial subject in most parts of the world. Magpie: > We're having a discussion, but JKR isn't part of it defending > anything. Because she's not a member of this list. > She just said Dumbledore was gay and went on her merry way. She was able to "go on her merry way" because she made the statement in a relatively limited forum and few people are aware of her comments. If she had made DD explicitly homosexual in the pages of the canon, it WOULD have generated a great deal of controversy, and she would have been forced to defend her decision. > it does still kind of surprise me that she'd be put off including > a gay character because she feared defending it. If not her, then the publisher, who WOULD fear losing book sales. > I'm just saying that including a gay character in a book is a > pretty common thing nowadays, I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the modern state of children's literature, but I'd be surprised if homosexual characters are "common" occurence in children's books. That's not to say there are *no* children's books with homosexual characters, but I doubt they represent (percentage-wise) a major segment of the market. Sorry, my daughter is begging to go out and play, so I don't have time to address the rest of your excellent points. --CJ From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 05:49:12 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:49:12 -0000 Subject: Trusting Hagrid (Was: Re: re:Slytherins / Slughorn / Ron / put-outer / Deskpig / Seven Potters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178240 Amanda Writes: You see the way I had seen it was, not many of the staff trusted him either that was another reason I found it weird.(McGonagall voiced this right away in the SS) You also have to take it into thought he did not know the real Moody either. Hagrid was a friend and one Harry could easily trust, but when it came to information he was not to be really fully trusted. So why, is it that hard to believe others would see maybe Hagrid as irresponible? With that in mnd who is it you all really thought gave up the plan, Hagrid, or Mundungus, or Severus? I had thought it was Mundungus right away, but now I see it could have easily been all of them. From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 06:24:08 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:24:08 -0000 Subject: Serious Question on Chamber of Secrets that lead to toher books. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178241 Amanda Writes: I am at the point in which Harry and Ron are going to force Lockhart to help them. Now was hiring of Lockhart a DD mistake, or was just another peice of the puzzle to make Harry face Voldemort again? It seems another serious lack in judgement on DD part yet again hiring him, because he is the exact opposite of everything he claims to have written. From the moment you first read about him he bleeds FRAUD. I also believe that as a character who has so much to do with the happenings of the story his back story was nil, and what gave him any credentials to teach. OMG So he wrote a book or 7. He can not do anything but smile compentently, so how did he get his story printed. All he really seems to be is a bookmark to start the seeming unending bad decisions that DD makes about dealing with the students and most of all Harry. The one thing that seemed to fit was what happened to Lockhart in the end of the book, he becomes truly as ditzy as he comes off. Why is it we never hear DD ever have to fess up to those who have been wronged at the time it was proven, with the exception of the first book, and the final book. Why is there such little backstory on his parents as they are two of the biggest characters who are not truly in action of being involved. They are almost constantly being mentioned, but the story you get of his mother leads you to question how good she was when she let Severus torture her sister. When she let James torture Severus. With James all you see is the conceited kid he was in school. Then all the sudden they are married and have Harry. That is what we know. Oh and then you find out they were origninal members of the OofP 'til Lilly get pregnant. Then they hide and then they die. Yet, we are expected to believe they are good and Severus is evil. You can see where there is a bit of backwards thought involved. Is it lack of forethought or is the story builds so fast there is no time to add a better story-line for these characters? From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 08:33:53 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:33:53 +0200 Subject: Severus Snape References: Message-ID: <006001c81486$4865bf60$334677d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178242 Amanda wrote: "Since I started to reread the books from the beginning, I have noticed something. She gives a brief glimpse that maybe Severus Snape was not exactly who we thought him to be." Well, Amanda, this is because Rowling used Harry's point of view, and hating or loving someone is a complex thing. If you are confessed someone is bad (or don't like you in particular) it's mentally difficult to change this image/point of view. A coach told me "our way of thinking/ideas is influencing our experiences.", and this is the case with Harry. He didn't know why Snape didn't like him, and can't understand why Snape is doing what he did. Snape expected to see James in Harry, So he saw James and his arrogance and bad character. Best, Katty From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 22 11:44:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:44:42 -0000 Subject: Trusting Hagrid (Was: Re: re:Slytherins / Slughorn / Ron / put-outer / Deskpig / Seven Potters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178243 > Amanda Writes:> > You see the way I had seen it was, not many of the staff trusted > him either that was another reason I found it weird.(McGonagall > voiced this right away in the SS) You also have to take it into > thought he did not know the real Moody either. Hagrid was a friend > and one Harry could easily trust, but when it came to information > he was not to be really fully trusted. So why, is it that hard to > believe others would see maybe Hagrid as irresponible? Potioncat: My reaction was "Hagrid! Is that wise?" Then I thought, Oh, another plot arc coming full circle. Hagrid has been the one to transport Harry at crucial times. He took Baby Harry to Privet Drive, young Harry to Diagon Alley and now he transports Harry out of childhood. What I think was strange was that each pair didn't have an escort. Moody seemed much more careful in OoP than he is now. >Amanda: > With that in mnd who is it you all really thought gave up the plan, > Hagrid, or Mundungus, or Severus? Potioncat: I think Mundungus is Snape's informant. Snape finds out the date from Mundungus then Confunds him into suggesting 7 Potters. I'm not sure if Confundungus even knows he meets with Snape. I'm very sure he doesn't know he's given information. Now, as far as that goes. I can better understand trusting Hagrid than I can Mundungus! Why he was ever involed in this mission is beyond me! From Woodsy at Nova1.net Mon Oct 22 12:01:18 2007 From: Woodsy at Nova1.net (woodsy0914) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:01:18 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178244 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks to > me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted to > marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got > dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. He never seemed > particularly happy to be with her in public, gave no impression that > he was happy to be getting laid regularly, tried to run away with > Harry as an excuse to run away from her pregnancy. > I agree with everything you say here. I always saw Remus and Sirius as a couple. Even Snape alluded to it with his "old married couple" comment. This is not inconsistent with the story line. After losing Sirius at the end of OOTP, Remus was eventually talked into a heterosexual relationship _because_ he was so weak-willed and lonely, and Tonks was so persistent (I really liked Tonks a lot before she became yet another lovesick puppy.) Remus lived to regret that decision, but alas not for long. Death may have well been a welcome escape, not only from a wife and child he didn't really want, but from his difficult life as a werewolf without the true love of his life. AM From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 22 12:29:01 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:29:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178245 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page > > looks to me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, > > never wanted to marry her or live with her, never wanted to have > > a child, and got dragged into all those things against his (weak) > > will. Alla: > I kept telling myself, oh no, no he just deludes himself and he is > just too afraid to give himself and Tonks a chance, insecure, etc. > > Here comes DH. Lupin basically **runnig away** from Tonks, till > Harry yells at him, IMO. And Tonks as always runs after him. > > I saw no great love there, when Lupin would rather be with Trio > than with his pregnant wife. > > OOOOOOOOO. Duh Alla. Another unrequited love in the series? Tonks > of Lupin maybe? SSSusan: But. But. But didn't canon show us a Lupin who finally **allowed** himself to love Tonks fully after Harry yelled at him? I mean, yeah, we saw resistance and hesitation and surliness and *seeming* lack of interest in Tonks. But I never took that as Lupin *truly* not wanting Tonks. I took it all as that insecurity & fear and even *disgust* with himself for not having made sure Tonks didn't become pregnant. I think Lupin was truly tormented about the possibility that Tonks had made a horrible mistake in loving him and in the possibility that they could have a child who would either be a werewolf or would be horrified to discover that his/her father was one. All of this struck me as very reasonable on Lupin's part. Would I have liked for him to get over it sooner? Yes. Would I have preferred that Harry not have to call him a coward for him to snap out of it? Yes! But I took Remus's happiness in being back with Tonks and his joy at Teddy's birth as *true* happiness & joy, that he had finally *allowed* himself to trust that he wasn't sentencing others to a miserable life by virtue of their loving and being connected to him. In short, I don't think it was unrequited love at all on Tonks's part. I think Lupin just felt he could be nothing other than a burden or an embarrassment to Tonks and any offspring they might have, and he ran from the love he felt for her for that reason for a very long time. Just one woman's view. :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 12:52:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:52:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178246 > SSSusan: > But. But. But didn't canon show us a Lupin who finally **allowed** > himself to love Tonks fully after Harry yelled at him? >> In short, I don't think it was unrequited love at all on Tonks's > part. I think Lupin just felt he could be nothing other than a > burden or an embarrassment to Tonks and any offspring they might > have, and he ran from the love he felt for her for that reason for a > very long time. Alla: I do not know, dear. Trust me, I like your view and want you to be completely right on this one, I really do. As I said, sure I could buy Lupin's insecurities in HBP and could take him denying himself true happiness and people trying to convince him, etc. I am afraid that in DH his running away again is a bit too much that I could believably see true love there, which again does not mean that you are incorrect, just picture in my head. I guess, insecurities or not, I just cannot see man who truly loves the woman he **just married** much rather join the Trio on the horcruxes hunt. I have no doubt that he was truly happy when Teddy was born. I do not think he hated Tonks or anything like that, and I want to believe that he finally allowed himself to **love** her, but I just do not know. I felt so sad when I read about them both lying there dead, snif, but did Remus die in love? I do not know. Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 22 12:56:43 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:56:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178247 > SSSusan: > But. But. But didn't canon show us a Lupin who finally **allowed** > himself to love Tonks fully after Harry yelled at him? > > I mean, yeah, we saw resistance and hesitation and surliness and > *seeming* lack of interest in Tonks. But I never took that as Lupin > *truly* not wanting Tonks. Potioncat: Me too. I've never quite gotten the fan reaction to Lupin, or actually understood Harry's reaction to Lupin. I don't see much difference between Lupin distancing himself from Tonks in this situation and Harry distancing himself from Ginny. And with this war going on, it makes sense for Lupin to want to help Harry. Actually, I don't JKR writes romance all that well. The one relationship that rings true is Molly and Arthur---and lots of fans don't care for that relationship! Now, what I thought was happening, at first read, was that ESE!Lupin wanted to spy on Harry. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Oct 22 14:17:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:17:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News Message-ID: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178248 From: allies426 For example: > >Harry's invisibility cloak - the fact that it exists, that it's the >only one of its kind, that is is a Hallow, and that it was in >Dumbledore's possession because he was investigating it as a Hallow. >(To quote SS: Your father left this in possession before he died. It >is time it was returned to you. Use it well.") That completely fits >in with JKR hinting on her website that it is significant that DD had >the cloak. She knew what it was even then. Here are a few problems I have with the cloak: 1) Nobody mentioned to Harry that it was strange that his cloak was so effective after so much time. It's a bit of a challenge to come up with an exact real world equivalent, because most real world items that wear out can be made to last much longer, with repair and extreme care, or are easily replaced ("Here's the tennis ball my father used to use." doesn't exactly cut it). And I will admit that nobody noticed how old Scabbers was (which is kind of hard to believe; most people with pets are QUITE aware of their age and life expectancy). Perhaps something with a built-in rechargeable battery would be a good example. 2) It was too easy to see through it. Now, I could understand if DD could detect presence through sound (heartbeats, or whatever), but when MadEye's eye could see right through it, it lowers its power well below the other DH's. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 14:48:43 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:48:43 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes /Re: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: <5785.65075.qm@web31510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178249 Metylda Wrote: > I chalk his clothing choices up to age, not sexual preference. Dumbledore dressed flamboyantly when he was young and when he was old. > There are many ways she could have > answered the question that was asked. > A simple, "What do you think" would > have sufficed. Heavens knows she gave > us enough vague answers BEFORE the > books came out. And before the last book came out she said when the series was complete she looked forward to answering our questions more fully. When she was writing the books she thought of Dumbledore as gay, are you saying she should have forever kept that information from us? When the movie makers asked JKR to look over the script for movie 6 and it had something about Dumbledore getting hot and heavy over a pretty girl when he was young, should Rowling have said nothing even though it was contrary to the character she created? If she told the movie makers that Dumbledore was gay it was only a matter of time before the news leaked, JKR chose to announce it in her own way. Tonks Wrote: > Talk about stereotypes The thing about stereotypes is that most of them contain an element of truth. To pretend that some gay men don't dress much more flamboyantly than straight men is not being realistic. I'm not making a value judgment (if someone wants to be flamboyant or gay or both that's their business not mine), I'm just making an observation. Eggplant From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 09:53:35 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:53:35 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C731F.8030601@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178250 Carol: Alla quoted a Leaky article: > "First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed > to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay Lee replied: > Well, I'd have to dispute the subject line: "There is a gay couple > in canon". Carol responds: > I agree with you. It seems to me that, since the last book came out, > JKR has been trying to control the interpretation of her characters Well, I have to eat my words, or at least one helping of them. True to form, the media is to blame. The Leaky Caldron quote above says JKR revealed the "fact" that DD is homosexual. By contrast, JKR's actual words were apparently, "I've always thought DD was gay." She didn't say, "DD is gay", she merely replied with her own musings on the subject. It was the press which reported it as fact. So I don't think JKR is entirely to blame on this, only insofar as with all her media experience by now she should have realized what would happen to her words as they passed through the media filter and came out the other side. > and to treat her speculations about the future of her surviving > characters [etc.] Well, if the current situation is any indication, I'd say it doesn't appear as if JKR is necessarily trying to control how fandom views her creations. She's just a bit too heedless about how her pronouncements are received. JKR saying, "I've always thought of DD as gay," is NOT the same as Lee Kaiwen saying it. One is reported as gospel, the other as the rabid musings of a crackpot :-) --CJ From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 22 15:31:13 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:31:13 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/Remus and Tonks/Trouble with Being Gay/JKR shut up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178251 Susan: > So who does the homophobic mocking? Dudley who is a > bully and who > uses any weapon he can against Harry... > and Rita Skeeter...gosh she's someone I think we all > want to > emulate...BUT she is not accusing DD of being gay, > she's accusing him > of being a child sexual abuser, which is probably one > of the worst > things any human being can be. (If we assume which I > think it likely > that that is the meaning of "unnatural".) Magpie: It doesn't matter who does the mocking, because I'm not claiming that these characters speak for the author or that we're encouraged to be like them (or that Ron is particularly homophobic). I was listing all the times there were *explicit* references to same sex relationships in the books, and these are it, along with the Nancy Boy comment. It's too roundabout to make these things a statement against homophobia. Is Dudley's line funny because he's being homophobic, because he suggested Harry could have a boyfriend or because he suggested Cedric was his boyfriend? I think a lot of people might just read it as the second. Carol: To bring in a romantic attraction would, IMO, take away from DD's true desire or true temptation--power. Magpie: I hadn't thought of that, but that's a good point. I disagree with all the claims that it shouldn't be in the books because it would somehow be distracting or there's no way to put it in easily, but I do think you have a point that it muddies things. She compared them to Bellatrix/Voldemort which I think shows this could be done just fine if you connect the attraction to the power of the other person. However, since she didn't do that it's not canon, period, that I can see. I might thing they had an affair but the affair is like the friendship--the important part is the temptation of Grindenwald's ideas. That said, I do *not* understand the leap (not that Carol is making it) that Dumbledore being gay makes him attracted to teenagers. He's been a single man who's headmaster for years--why does it suddenly become more sexual because of his orientation? He could have placed himself there to be near pretty young girls as well as boys, and all the teachers we see are single! (Actually it's Slughorn who pinged me as liking to be around the pretty boys among many other types.) Dumbledore placed himself with teenagers because he decided to be a teacher and this is pretty much the only school there is in this world. He has a lot of relationships outside the school as well. Catlady: I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks to me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted to marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. He never seemed particularly happy to be with her in public, gave no impression that he was happy to be getting laid regularly, tried to run away with Harry as an excuse to run away from her pregnancy. Magpie: That's how it came across to me too. I know that Lupin was supposed to be finally taking a chance in letting himself be happy (once Harry set him straight) but it came across to me as just a sad, fake marriage. I never saw S/R as canon *until* DH, at which point I had to laugh when Lupin wound up appearing with Sirius in the afterlife, finally having gotten away from Tonks. (Ironically Tonks and Lupin were two characters many people felt were "coded" as gay, so their being married seemed like one more "everybody should be straight!" message.) The only time Remus is in a scene with Tonks where they seem basically on the same page is at Dumbledore's funeral, and that's pretty weak. Lexa: If Dumbledore being gay is truly supposed to be a non-issue, why isn't he openly gay anywhere in the books? And I don't believe the arguments that it's not relevant to the plot or that Harry wouldn't notice. We know that Ron is heterosexual, that Hermione is, that Ginny is, Dean, Lavender, Percy, Bill, Fleur, Remus, Tonks, Hagrid, Snape, Sirius, that Teddy freakin' Lupin is, for god's sake. What's the relevance of all that? And Harry notices it all, or we wouldn't know it. All those charcters, and more, get to BE heterosexual in ways that Dumbledore does not get to BE gay - nor does any other character. Nowhere in these books can she have a single out queer character, Dumbledore or anyone else? Nowhere AT ALL, does Harry ever notice any kind of queerness? Sorry, I'm not buying the argument that Dumbledore's sexuality isn't in the books or shouldn't be there because it shouldn't matter. Not when there's an entire litany of characters who are shown being heterosexual while queerness is invisible, and the single face of gayness that we're given - after the fact, in an extra-textual interview - has his queerness so elided within the text that it can be written off as eccentricity. Not when Dumbledore was outed in such a way that allows people to pick and choose whether they want to believe it or not, in a way that some readers might never even know about it. Magpie: I agree with this. Since the announcement the main thing I've read is all the reasons why it was good she kept it out because gay people and same sex romance just can't be put into a story the way straight characters and straight romance can--arguments that are imo completely untrue. The people who don't want a gay character still "win"--they've got a book totally without any gay characters at all. Harry goes through adolescence with all his peers and none of them are gay that we see. LCJ: She was able to "go on her merry way" because she made the statement in a relatively limited forum and few people are aware of her comments. If she had made DD explicitly homosexual in the pages of the canon, it WOULD have generated a great deal of controversy, and she would have been forced to defend her decision. Magpie: Okay, she would have to defend it the way she defends everything else in the books which includes everything from murder to implications of bestiality. But it's hard for me to believe this would be particularly daunting to defend--no more so than R/Hr and H/G, since it seems like she has the most trouble with H/Hr shippers. She'd just be joining a very long list of ordinary authors, including many YA authors, who include gay characters in their books. However controversial that might be for some it's nothing groundbreaking in publishing, and she's got a lot more power than they do. And I don't think it would have dominated the reaction to DH if it were in the text. I'm not sure what you mean about "few people" being aware of her comments, though. It's been all over the TV. Yeah there's probably many more who don't know about it, but it's not like by only announcing it at Carnegie Hall she's safe from any group that might attack her for it. Magpie: > it does still kind of surprise me that she'd be put off including > a gay character because she feared defending it. LCJ: If not her, then the publisher, who WOULD fear losing book sales. Magpie: If that's true I'd really feel badly for Arthur Levine. It would break his heart to be told he had to cut gay characters from a book in his imprint because they were gay--and he'd probably fight tooth and nail to get them in there. Not that I accept this is what happened. It's hard for me to think that Harry Potter's book sales would be cut into that much because there was one gay character. (Meanwhile Pullman's happily writing gay angels in his best- sellers...) Magpie: > I'm just saying that including a gay character in a book is a > pretty common thing nowadays, LCJ: I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the modern state of children's literature, but I'd be surprised if homosexual characters are "common" occurence in children's books. That's not to say there are *no* children's books with homosexual characters, but I doubt they represent (percentage-wise) a major segment of the market. Magpie: They don't have to be a big percentage of the market, I'm just saying it's totally not unusual to have a gay character in a juvenile book. There's lots of them. Many YA readers are gay themselves or their parents are, and it's just not remarkable to have a gay character. Re: JKR "shutting up" count me in the side that thinks that she should. Of course she has the right to say anything she wants about her characters, but for many of us what she says does make our reading experience less pleasant. I think the way she does it makes it even more unpleasant, actually. There are authors who can discuss their works in a way that doesn't sound like they're telling you right from wrong, but she's not one of them. Stop telling me how to react to different things, don't explain characters to me in terms of how I should judge them, don't tell me everything that happened to every character for the rest of their lives. I know there are people who actually like this stuff and they ask questions that she then picks and chooses to answer (no, I don't believe for one second she was caught off guard by this question--didn't she pick it beforehand?), but there are those of us who don't at all--and there are authors who share our pov too. This type of thing goes totally against the way I read books and it doesn't add to the experience it damages it. -m From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 15:33:45 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:33:45 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178252 Bart: Here are a few problems I have with the cloak: 1) Nobody mentioned to Harry that it was strange that his cloak was so effective after so much time. It's a bit of a challenge to come up with an exact real world equivalent, because most real world items that wear out can be made to last much longer, with repair and extreme care, or are easily replaced ("Here's the tennis ball my father used to use." doesn't exactly cut it). And I will admit that nobody noticed how old Scabbers was (which is kind of hard to believe; most people with pets are QUITE aware of their age and life expectancy). Perhaps something with a built-in rechargeable battery would be a good example. 2) It was too easy to see through it. Now, I could understand if DD could detect presence through sound (heartbeats, or whatever), but when MadEye's eye could see right through it, it lowers its power well below the other DH's. Bart Tiffany: I too wasn't that impressed by the cloak that Harry had with him because he didn't seem use it enough when he could've of. I thought the cloak itself was a great idea at first, but it seemed that it wasn't the most effective tool by Harry Potter. It was really easy to see through also & DD could tell if Harry was coming even if he couldn't see him coming. When MadEye could see right through it, I wasn't very impressed with it at all. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 09:25:53 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:53 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C6CA1.4060000@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178253 juli17 at aol.com blessed us with this gem On 22/10/2007 13:42: > What was she supposed to do, say it is a secret or something? How about turn it back on the audience and just let them decide for themselves? It's what I usually do with my daughter when I want her to know her opinion is a valid and valuable as my own. > If fans didn't want to know ... Didn't want to know what? I admit I didn't read the interview, but was the questioner asking whether DD was homosexual, or simply how JKR thought on the issue? And was JKR's response presenting it as fact (my impression is yes, but again, I didn't read the interview) or simply as her own views, with room for readers' alternative interpretations? > That is something of a given when you consider how tolerant > she is of fan fiction. I'm sure this is going to re-open this whole can of worms re: fanfic but what the hey: Frankly, there's not a lot JKR can do about fanfic, at least in the US, as long as it's not done for profit. In the US the Supreme Court has already ruled that the paramount tests of infringement are whether the alleged infringement competes in the same market (see the Beatles' Apple Records trademark suit against Apple Computer, for example) and whether it threatens the market for the original material. Not-for-profit fanfic does neither. Frankly, JKR has no choice but to be tolerant. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 10:12:30 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:12:30 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C778E.2010902@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178254 prep0strus: > Maybe it's because I think the hallows weren't very well thought out. Cool! If I hadn't just posted my own thoughts on this before reading yours, I would have thought I'd written yours. I think we felt exactly the same way about the whole Hallows mess. AFAIC, it could (no, should) have just been left out. DH would have been more coherent, the pacing would have been much improved and I wouldn't have gotten a migraine trying to figure out the whole musical wands thing. > And, on a slightly separate note... these people need to come up with > more wand related magic. Again - absolutely. If a wand changes ownership every time it's Expelliarimus-ed -- well, I don't see how anyone in the WW would have kept his wand more than a week. Given how many people LV killed, why'd he need to borrow Malfoy's? He must've had a couple of trunksful of sticks to choose from. Though I imagine Ollivander wouldn't mind the extra business in replacement wands. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 09:59:49 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:59:49 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471C7495.7000609@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178255 Allie: > And here I MUST comment because it becomes clear from DH that MANY > MANY things were planned in advance, from the time that SS was written: > For example: > Harry's invisibility cloak - the fact that it exists, that it's the > only one of its kind, that is is a Hallow... OK, I'm not disputing your point, merely your example. It was the Hallows specifically that I felt were been pulled out of you-know-where, as if JKR were saying, "OK, now I need three Hallows -- lessee, oooh -- Harry's cloak, yeah that's good. And umm ... " There was no sudden revelation for me, more a sense of, "Huh? Where'd THAT come from?" It felt forced, fake, inorganic. Again, not to dispute your main point. --CJ From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 13:05:16 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:05:16 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy Message-ID: <000601c814ac$3324a870$334677d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178256 SSSusan wrote: " ... I don't think it was unrequited love at all on Tonks's part. I think Lupin just felt he could be nothing other than a burden or an embarrassment to Tonks and any offspring they might have, and he ran from the love he felt for her for that reason for a very long time. Just one woman's view. :)" Katty: It's my point of view too. Here are the notes I made about Lupin: Lupin was wrestling his whole life with the lycantropy as every person with a handicap does. You can never accept the handicap, you have to learn how to deal/come to terms with/digest with it. Lupin thought, e.g. his future child would be ashamed of having "a father like him", he was aware Tonks was an outcast since she married him (cf. DH1, Voldemort's humiliation of Bellatrix and what he said about Tonks). He was used to hear he couldn't do that job (often dismissed when applying for a job), he wasn't a respected member of society ... If this is repeating all the time the handicaped person will resign, give up his fathership, ..., and so, he slowly loses his identity, becoming "the werewolf" and nothing more. This negative way of thinking can only be reversed by the help of others, giving the handicaped person chances to prove himself, to use his own talents, to show who he is, and making the stigma of the handicap less pronounced. When Harry told Lupin "you only have a problem" he didn't minamize or ridicule Lupin's handicap, but he gave it the proportions the lycantropy deserves. The only real "problem" for the handicaped person is, they are so often told they have an handicap, that at last they only can see their handicap. They hardly see they have qualities, talents, a personality, ... By giving him a job, Dumbledore offered Lupin a status, a chance to prove himself and to regain self-confidence. During the discussion with Harry (DH11), Lupin got the stimulus to face and deal with his status of father and married man, ... This hard way of teaching is sometimes necessary to change an attitude. So, SSSusan I agree with you. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 22 16:33:17 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:33:17 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: <471C7495.7000609@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178257 > Allie: > > > And here I MUST comment because it becomes clear from DH that MANY > > MANY things were planned in advance, from the time that SS was written: va32h: OR that she went back through previous books looking for objects she could re-use. I don't think it's possible to *know* how much JKR planned or did not plan from day one unless we ask her very specific questions or get to read all her notes. Either scenario (she planned it/she improvised as she went along) is equally likely. We do know that she has changed her mind at times because she said so (the character that was supposed to do magic late in life, for example.) And from the extras on her website we know that she had ideas that she rejected (Hermione's father witnessing the Godric's Hollow explosion). It does not matter to me either way whether she planned it or not - I've just never personally found it plausible that every aspect of the books had been planned from the beginning. Things like the Vanishing Cabinet were very cleverly done and the use of that cabinet may have been planned as early as CoS (since JKR said CoS and HBP had intermingling plots.) But Draco's Hand of Glory was badly done (he didn't even buy it in CoS and Ron and Ginny never saw it, yet they are the ones who identify it) so I don't think she planned that from the beginning. va32h From Meliss9900 at aol.com Mon Oct 22 16:37:22 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:37:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178258 In a message dated 10/22/2007 9:17:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bartl at sprynet.com writes: Here are a few problems I have with the cloak: 1) Nobody mentioned to Harry that it was strange that his cloak was so effective after so much time How many people really know about Harry's cloak though? Hermione, Ron, Sirius, Lupin, Pettigrew, & Hagrid of course. Did any other adult other than Dumbledore? Mr and Mrs Weasley? Professor McGonagall? The Twins?. Snape might have suspected it but I can't recall if he actually knew for certain about it. I doubt the cloak's longevity would have crossed many of their minds to be perfectly honest. Hermione, McG and Lupin might have had a few minutes more thought about it but I doubt that they would have seriously considered it as being more rare of an object than any other invisibility cloak. As for Moody seeing thorough it, once again he was using a 'magical' eye to see through a 'magical' object. I don't have much trouble believing that's possible. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 14:28:43 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:28:43 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178259 Combined answer to Penhaligon, Susan McGee, and va32h. *** Penhaligon wrote: > Can you please explain how you possibly arrived at this conclusion? Del scratches her head and answers: I spent an entire post doing just that, so I don't understand exactly what you're expecting from me here? *** Susan McGee wrote: > I would be outraged and stricken if JKR were to say that DD was > fixated on young boys or attracted to young boys. Del replies: So would I. But that wasn't the point of my post. > I do not believe that canon supports the idea that DD was attracted > to and spied upon adolescent boys and was romantically or sexually > infatuated with them. There is no evidence for this fact. Yes there is. I presented that evidence in my first post. You can choose to interpret that evidence differently than I do, but you can't say it's not there. And by the way: there is even less evidence for DD being gay. > I'm interested in the fact that after you carefully lay out this > argument about how canon supports DD as fixated on adolescent > boys you then say that that was what Rita Skeeter (a known > distorter of the truth) would say and you don't agree. > > It's great that we agree, then! It depends what it is we supposedly agree on. Do I agree that DD wasn't *in fact* ephebophile? Yes. But do I agree that the canon presents him more as gay than ephebophile? No. > I do become concerned when some people jump from the announcement > that DD is gay to the idea that he must be a pervert or someone > who secretly yearns after youth. I think it's connected to the > mistaken idea that it is gay men or lesbians who molest children > or youth. That of course is not true. I get irritated by that kind of argument. It's not because JKR said that DD is gay that I "jump" to the conclusion that he was ephebophile. Those are 2 different things, I'm perfectly aware of that. What I am arguing is that JKR's declaration that DD was sexually attracted to GG, *in the light of the available canon*, points to ephebophilia more than to homosexuality. IOW: that DD was never actually gay to start with. > J.K. Rowling stated that Albus Dumbledore fell in love with GG. > They were both the same or around the same age. It was an equal > relationship with someone of the same age (if in fact they had a > relationship, we don't know). How does that preclude ephebophilia? It doesn't preclude homosexuality, I agree with that, but it doesn't preclude ephebophilia either. The fact (that DD was in love with GG) could fit either inclination. So what matters is the context, ie the rest of the canon. And the rest of the canon supports ephebophilia more than homosexuality IMO. See, if GG had been a grown man when DD fell in love with him, then the case would be closed. But he wasn't. He was a youth. > We don't know if DD ever had another partner or lover. J.K. Rowling > doesn't say. He, of course, could have. And he, of course, may not have. Suppositions won't get us anywhere. > We do know that DD cared for and protected the children of Hogwarts > to the best of his ability. This doesn't preclude ephebophilia. > We don't know that he never confronted Tom Riddle. We do know he > spent his life fighting Tom Riddle. No he didn't. He only fought LV once LV came to power. He'd known for many long decades before that time that Tom Riddle was up to no good, but he did exactly *nothing* to thwart him right until LV started waging war on the WW. > Despite being in love with GG, Dumbledore defeated him in battle > and had him sent to prison for the rest of his life. Yes, he > delayed can one imagine going into mortal battle with someone > a) you had been in love with and b) someone who reminded you of > the worst mistakes of your own life? Change GG to Tom Riddle, and it provides you with a perfect explanation for why DD didn't even try to stop Tom's rise to evil power. > So this canon support of Dumbledore as someone who is fixated on > young boys seems to evaporate. Hardly. *** va32h wrote: > But I gather you are going for some sort of Humbert Humbert scenario > where Dumbledore is fixated on a certain age because of the nature > of his first love? No. I'm rather saying that the nature of his first love was already an indication of his natural inclination. > Dumbledore suspected Tom regarding the basilisk, but did not know > for certain, Then why not *try* and know for certain? Neither Tom nor DD ever said anything about DD actually investigating the murder of Myrtle. He didn't talk to Tom, he didn't talk to any of Tom's gang, nothing. DD admitted that Tom's years at Hogwarts were marked by increasing nastiness, but nobody ever indicated that DD ever *did* anything about this nastiness. DD admits that he strongly suspected Tom, Tom says that DD never trusted him and was always keeping a watchful eye on him, but that's it. No *action*. Just wearily looking at what is going on, just like he was doing with GG. > and it's very much Dumbledore's nature to give people the benefit of > the doubt. That's the image he likes to project, but I don't buy it. That's nothing more than a handy excuse to justify not taking action IMO. > Also, Tom Riddle was very > well liked by Armando Dippet (Dumbledore's superior at the time) so > I'm not sure how much weight would have been given to Dumbledore's > nebulous suspicions. Does this justify not even trying? > Dumbledore did speak to Tom directly - but in that Dumbledore way of > trying to get the guilty party to voluntarily fess up. Except that DD already knew perfectly well that Tom only fesses up when forced to do it. Remember the stash of stolen objects at the orphanage? Tom only confessed because he realised that DD already knew all about it. > Except that Snape didn't die, and we aren't really certain that > Sirius actually thought Snape was going to die. When you send a kid wizard to the lair of a werewolf, you know they are going to die. And no Snape didn't die, but Sirius showed *murderous* intent nonetheless. > Nor do we know if or how Sirius was punished. It isn't specifically > mentioned that Sirius was not punished at all, was it? Nor is it specifically mentioned that he was seriously punished. > But it isn't flip to point out that Dumbledore allowed the adult > Snape to treat Harry and Neville rather badly without any > repercussions that we know of. So does that mean Dumbleore had a > crush on the adult Snape too? I doubt it. We know what DD's feelings towards Snape are because we are *shown* their interactions. We don't need to infer from some indirect clues. We are shown DD telling Snape "you disgust me", we are shown DD dismissing Snape whenever Snape goes on a rant about Harry, we are shown DD publicly humiliating Snape by stealing the House Cup from under Snape's nose and handing it to Gryffindor, and so on. So we know that DD definitely doesn't have a crush on adult Snape. > We've never heard of Dumbledore brushing his teeth or taking a bath > either, but I'm sure he did. (We do know he went to the bathroom at > least once!) We never hear of James, Lily, Snape, Remus, Tonks, Arthur, Molly, Bill, and Fleur, for example, brushing their teeth or taking a bath either, but we *do* hear of their love affairs. Are they more important than DD? Both in terms of overall story, and in terms of Harry's personal story? > Where in the course of Harry's story would it have > been logical to introduce Dumbleore's adult relationships? Anywhere. Just a small picture of DD with another man somewhere in the Headmaster's office, and Harry realising in passing what it means, would have been enough. Instead, we get to hear again and again about Fawkes and the softly stirring silver instruments. > Dumbledore's feelings for Harry are paternal. They are so blatantly > paternal (IMO of course) that I can't imagine how anyone could read > them otherwise! Dumbledore's whole speech at the end of OoTP about > Harry being too young to know his fate, wanting him to be happy, not > wanting to burden him with adult responsibilities - everything about > that interaction screams father-son to me. Yes, it's one way to see it. But I don't see that a celibate ephebophile (ie someone who didn't want to hit on Harry) couldn't have said exactly the same things. > I don't think it was decades was it? I thought DH said it was five > years between Grindelwald's rise to power and the duel. And what about before the rise to power? GG didn't just lie still all that time. He was actively preparing his rise to power. But we have absolutely no indication that DD ever did anything to change GG's mind or prevent him from rising to power in the first place. Exactly the same thing as happened later on with Tom Riddle. > You know I always thought Dumbledore was too hard on himself about > the Grindelwald thing. Why was it Dumbledore's sole responsibility > to bring down Gellert? Sure, Albus was the most talented wizard of > his day, but he wasn't the only talented wizard. He wasn't a > politician or a warrior, he was a schoolteacher. Actually, DD was already settling into some political positions, like in the Wizengamot, back when he was still in school (British Youth Representative to the Wizengamot). And I don't think he got to be Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards by keeping his head low. So yes, he was a politician. As for being a warrior: all wizards are warriors, as Molly demonstrated in DH. Carrying a wand is carrying a mortal weapon, as Ariana's death sadly proved. But anyway: I don't think that the WW so much expected DD to rid them of GG, as to at least *try*. Sure, they figured that if he tried he would probably win anyway, but what they were really clamouring for was for DD to at least *try* to help them. > I don't think Dumbledore had to "set his love aside to defeat evil". > I see it as Dumbledore recognizing a higher love (an agape sort of > love of humanity) above his long-ago affection for an old friend. That's a personal interpretation I just don't share. I used to think that DD indeed had some kind of higher love for humanity or something, but after DH, he just strikes me as very self-centered, doing good for other people only when it doesn't clash with his own interests. > Sort of the same way Lily had to set aside her affection for Snape > once it seemed clear to her that he was heading down the wrong path. > Lily was able to make that choice at a much younger age than > Dumbledore, but then Dumbledore never denied being a sentimental old > fool. Again, an easy excuse for not taking action when he should have IMO. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 16:28:00 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:28:00 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Weasley's lack of wealth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471CCF90.5050408@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178260 lmscallon: > This is my first post to this list, Looks like no one's replied to your post. Please don't take that as a sign of un-welcome, just an oversight. This is a friendly bunch -- at least, we are when we're not at each other's throats :-) > I have been wondering if there could be a deeper reason for making the > Weasley family poor. You've raised quite an interesting question (and, no, I don't recall it being discussed before on this list). I just wish I had something interesting to say about it, but I'm afraid I don't. Perhaps JKR was simply trying to make them "down to earth", bring them closer to us, to make us more comfortable with them. Your suggestion that she was trying to contrast them (in many ways other than just money) with other purebloods -- most of whom turn out in the WW to be elitist snobs, as you've noted, such as the Blacks and the Malfoys. I think the money thing was only briefly an issue between Ron and Harry. I think Harry's fame was a much tougher issue for Ron to handle than the money. > Am I missing a deeper meaning, or am I overanalyzing :) Over-analyzing? I do hope so. That's what we do best here! Welcome, --CJ From vincent.maston.ml at free.fr Mon Oct 22 14:26:49 2007 From: vincent.maston.ml at free.fr (Vincent Maston) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:26:49 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <471CB329.9090105@free.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 178261 Bart Lidofsky a crit : > 2) It was too easy to see through it. Now, I could understand if DD could detect presence through sound (heartbeats, or whatever), but when MadEye's eye could see right through it, it lowers its power well below the other DH's. Vincent : Not really, no. The DH are not described as "perfect" objetc, they have their flaws, and are just really (really really) well made, but still classical, magical objects. The Elder wand is a real good wand, like you could have a real good pair of shoes. But even with real good shoes, you still can be beat by a faster runner, and the Elder Wand is by no means unbeatable, whatever DD, Grindelwald or Voldy all believe at one time or another. The cloak, I think, is the same thing : it's a real good invisibility cloak, not fading or becoming seeable, but if someone (DD, MadEye) can see through a cloak, he'll be able to see through this cloak. It doesn't have any powers that an invisibility cloak doesn't have. Only better. And the stone... Don't get me started about the stone... From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 16:32:41 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:32:41 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178262 >> > > Tonks: said: > It seems to me that people, especially young people, classify > everyone according to their sexual orientation. One is either > Straight, Bi, or Gay, as if sex were the most important thing in > everyone's life. Has no one ever heard of the concept > of ???celibacy???? To be celibate is not the world of fridged women, > eunuchs and gay priest. Sex is meant for the formation of a family, > not an exciting contact sport for Saturday night entertainment. I > know others in our society don't agree with that, and I don't care. SNIP It's interesting, Tonks. I have some areas of agreement with you. I think celibacy is a fine choice...and I do think our American popular culture is oversexualized. (Although I have met lots of young people who argue that people should not be defined as gay, straight, bi, etc., and that gender identity should be fluid). I don't believe sex is just for procreation -- when two people are in love I believe sex can, and is in its best manifestation, a sacred act. I also think it's fine for two consenting adults to make love for fun and pleasure, so there we probably disagree. Where I have the most problems is where sex is cheapened, used for conquest or power over, etc. Tonks said: > I am upset at Rowlings actions primary for the impact it will have > on the world. I don't care if many people in the UK and U.S. are > open minded and accepting. I am open minded and accepting too. But > these books are read throughout the world. And this will have an > impact on those people who are not as "progressive" and ?liberal? as > the rest of us like to think that we are. Well, what about the lesbians and gay men throughout the world? Will that necessarily have a bad impact on them? > > Rowling has been very successful in doing want so many have dreamed > of and failed to do. She has united all people of the world. People > of all ages, races, religions, and nationalities have embraced the > teaching of Albus Dumbledore as if he were a god. They have great > respect for DD. Through him she has give great lessons on moral > theology to people the world over. These are timeless lessons, given > us by others long before DD, but through him they are brought afresh > to the world of today. This is very good. And the unifying > influence of the HP series is also a good thing." Yes, that's a good thing. We agree. But she DOESN'T make DD into a GOD! She makes the incredibly important point in her books (and I"m GLAD children are reading this part) that NO ONE is perfect. Snape is incredibly complex. He's vicious and nasty to his students, but he protects Harry because he was in love with his mother. He helps bring down Voldemort because he was once beautified by the power of love. DD is complex. He and GG were plotting to conquer the Muggles! He made a terrible mistake, and because of it his sister dies. He's a fallible person. He does manipulate people. Yet he accomplishes tremendous good. He is wise, and strong, and helpful, and fights evil. Now Rowlings has > taken out the gun and shot herself in the foot. For whatever > personal reason, one can only guess. But it severs no useful purpose > to discredit her wisest of wizard in the eyes of millions of people > who do not share our world view. For example, the books are read by > many Muslims the world over and in places such as Iran. How do you > think those people are taking this news? All I can say, is what the > hell was she thinking!! That she doesn't care about what bigots think. That she believes in tolerance for ALL people. That it doesn't discredit DD that he was in love with a man. That she doesn't see being sexual as something bad.. (the comment you made about DD being "above that"). For your comfort, I'd say the canon seems to suggest that DD was alone and celibate for his life. I'd like to think otherwise but I think he devoted his life to fighting evil, (LV), and to educating young people. *********** I agree with others that it would have been far better had JKR not created a "heteronormative" universe....where only heterosexuality is seen, and that it would have been better to include a few lesbian and gay characters here and there, kissing, or dating...otherwise you have a witch/wizard versus muggle scenario...lesbians and gays are among us, but are invisible. (Although I'll argue that Prof. Grubbly- Plank was trans). ...I don't believe SHE is perfect anymore than DD is perfect (smile)...but the very fact that she's assumed all along with DD was gay, knew that he was in love with GG, and made him as Emerson said on Geraldo the best wizard in the world.. makes me like her all the more. (and I know how out of step I am with the list right now - another smile). ******different tack... ....As for those who argue that Lupin was in fact another gay man, I think I agree. His greatest joy seemed to come from his son. Now I AM wondering why he showed up with Sirius in the afterlife. I understand why Harry's parents and Sirius showed up, they were the three adults who were closest to him, but was he that close to Lupin? Susan From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Oct 22 17:22:27 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:22:27 -0700 Subject: WW Racism? (was: Re: A Gay Potter Character?) In-Reply-To: <118150.56420.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <118150.56420.qm@web51902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1524012859.20071022102227@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178263 Sunday, October 21, 2007, 5:58:17 AM, Petra wrote: P> To me, this is a non-issue in the Wizarding World, just as P> racial prejudice is a non-issue. I agree that Jo's main goal is to use symbolism (anti-Muggle, anti-Muggle-borns, &c.) to protest RW bigotry. On the other hand, in OoP, Draco's worthy-of-Don-Imus remark about Angelina's dreadlocks makes me wonder if racism and other types of Muggle bigotry are wholly absent from the WW. Dave From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 17:32:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:32:28 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: <471C6CA1.4060000@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178264 Alla wrote: > > What was she supposed to do, say it is a secret or something? Lee Kaiwen: > How about turn it back on the audience and just let them decide for > themselves? It's what I usually do with my daughter when I want her to > know her opinion is a valid and valuable as my own. Alla: Huh? She was asked question about Dumbledore's love life, no? And then you would have her turn on audience and tell them decide for yourself? I would have found that answer to be incredibly rude frankly. Hee, JKR certainly cannot please everybody, unfortunately. There are many fans who want to know more and more facts from Potterverse, whether they would agree with them or not. I think the answer if one considers interviews to be noncanonical at all is simply ignore them. I for once would not want her to shut up at all. It is up to me whether to ignore what she tells me and some of it I do now, but if I find her answers consistent with the books, or something I think of as factual knowledge, I will take it and add to canon in my head. Do I still want to know more about Prank? You bet I do and if it comes from interview, so be it. Do I still want to know about Lily and James? Sure, interview or encyclopedia, anything will do. What happens to the characters in the future - I want to know. JMO, Alla From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 17:33:48 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <21844.52907.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178265 delwynmarch wrote: va32h wrote: > But I gather you are going for some sort of Humbert Humbert scenario > where Dumbledore is fixated on a certain age because of the nature > of his first love? >delwvnmarch: >No. I'm rather saying that the nature of his first love was already an >indication of his natural inclination. ***Katie replies: So, every teenager that falls in love with another teenager is going to be a pediphile? That is some seriously odd logic. Would you make that assumption if DD's first love had been Minerva McGonagall or some other woman, instead of a man? I really wonder. I see absolutely NO evidence in canon that DD was EVER attracted to young boys. And to say so, IMO, really denigrates the character and the story. I do wish JKR would just hush up - she's just creating controversy and confusion with every interview. Personally, I just wish she'd stop making the WW so much more like the RW. I read HP to *escape*, not to think about homophobia and pedophilia. I just want to think about Fizzing Whizbees and bubbling cauldrons, and my dear Snape sweeping about his dungeon like a bat....ahh, the good old days. 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 susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 22 17:51:17 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:17 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178266 va32h: > > You know I always thought Dumbledore was too hard on himself > > about the Grindelwald thing. Why was it Dumbledore's sole > > responsibility to bring down Gellert? Sure, Albus was the most > > talented wizard of his day, but he wasn't the only talented > > wizard. He wasn't a politician or a warrior, he was a > > schoolteacher. Del: > Actually, DD was already settling into some political positions, > like in the Wizengamot, back when he was still in school (British > Youth Representative to the Wizengamot). And I don't think he got > to be Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards > by keeping his head low. So yes, he was a politician. As for being a > warrior: all wizards are warriors, as Molly demonstrated in DH. > Carrying a wand is carrying a mortal weapon, as Ariana's death sadly > proved. But anyway: I don't think that the WW so much expected DD to > rid them of GG, as to at least *try*. Sure, they figured that if he > tried he would probably win anyway, but what they were really > clamouring for was for DD to at least *try* to help them. SSSusan: I know this wasn't at ALL the main point of what you two were discussing, but as to DD being a warrior or not... I guess I think of him very much as a warrior. He was the originator and acknowledged head of the Order of the Phoenix, which was a group set up to fight Voldemort & his Death Eaters. Does that not make him a warrior? OTOH, I disagree with the remark that "all wizards are warriors, as Molly demonstrated in DH." IMO Molly was a warrior precisely because she, like DD, chose to be in the Order of the Phoenix. But many other wizards and witches were NOT warriors! We do see each witch or wizard armed with a potentially deadly weapon, yes, but we do not see each witch or wizard deciding to become a *warrior,* as Molly & DD each did. Look at all the kids at Hogwarts who elected to join the DA and/or to fight there at the end of DH... as opposed to those who did not. To me, that's the same as any witch or wizard who chose to *freely* join the Order or the DEs. Anyone who did is a warrior; the many who did not are not. As to whether or not the masses expected DD to defeat GG, I definitely agree with Del that they expected him to at least try. My reading of DH led me to believe that DD was expected, in the same way that Harry was expected in his era, to go try for the simple reason that many believed them the only ones capable of pulling off the deed. Whether or not that was *fair* (which is what I believe va32h was actually getting at, above) is another matter. However, I do believe it is what people in the WW wanted and even expected, yes. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 17:52:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:52:53 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178267 > Potioncat: > > Me too. > > I've never quite gotten the fan reaction to Lupin, or actually > understood Harry's reaction to Lupin. I don't see much difference > between Lupin distancing himself from Tonks in this situation and Harry > distancing himself from Ginny. Alla: Mmmmm, to me the difference is that Lupin and Tonks were already married and when Harry's gesture I saw as idiotic in the noble way, Lupin's - idiotic in the cowardly way or in " I do not love you" way. Wouldn't one want to protect the woman he truly loves by being **near** her? Wouldn't one think that Tonks, who is also pregnant would be in less danger with Lupin by her side? It is not like Violdemort is hunting LUPIN specifically, no? All order members are obviously in danger, so wouldn't the husband, who is in danger want to protect wife who is also in danger? Harry is staying away from his girlfriend, whom he supposedly offers to go separate ways. What I am wondering if maybe Remus would much prefer to go separate ways too. Potioncat: >And with this war going on, it makes > sense for Lupin to want to help Harry. Alla: Oh, sure with this part I agree completely. In fact it would make sense for ALL Order members to want to help Harry and Co. So, sure in part it is the "let's get adults out of the plot's way" syndrome IMO. Potioncat: > Actually, I don't JKR writes romance all that well. The one > relationship that rings true is Molly and Arthur---and lots of fans > don't care for that relationship! Alla: I do care :) Not that fully approve, no, but find it to be very realistic one and loving too. Potioncat: > Now, what I thought was happening, at first read, was that ESE! Lupin > wanted to spy on Harry. Alla: It never entered in my head, not for a second heheh. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 18:01:40 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:01:40 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178268 > SSSusan: > As to whether or not the masses expected DD to defeat GG, I > definitely agree with Del that they expected him to at least try. My > reading of DH led me to believe that DD was expected, in the same way > that Harry was expected in his era, to go try for the simple reason > that many believed them the only ones capable of pulling off the deed. > > Whether or not that was *fair* (which is what I believe va32h was > actually getting at, above) is another matter. However, I do believe > it is what people in the WW wanted and even expected, yes. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan lizzyben: And did DD ever fight GG? I'm thinking no. In her article, Rita Skeeter refers to the DD/GG relationship & implies that GG simply surrendered. "But the importance of some of Dumbledore's achievements cannot, I venture, be denied. What of his famous defeat of Grindelwald? "Oh, now, I'm glad you mentioned Grindelwald," says Skeeter with a tantalizing smile. "I'm afraid those who go dewy eyed over Dumbledore's spectacular victory must brace themselves for a bombshell? or perhaps a Dungbomb. Very dirty business indeed. All I'll say is, don't be so sure that there really was the spectacular duel of legend. After they've read my book, people may be forced to conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and came quietly!" Smarmy & vicious she may be, but Rita Skeeter did get the inside scoop on the "Life & Lies of AD" & much of her reporting turned out to be correct. In this quote, IMO she's indirectly referring to the DD/GG relationship, and implying that GG simply gave up when DD finally confronted him - or even that GG voluntarily came to DD to accept defeat. This would help explain why DD would be able to win a duel when GG had the "unbeatable" elder wand. Maybe they never dueled at all. lizzyben From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 22 18:06:58 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:06:58 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > lizzyben: > > And did DD ever fight GG? I'm thinking no. In her article, Rita > Skeeter refers to the DD/GG relationship & implies that GG simply > surrendered. > > "But the importance of some of Dumbledore's achievements cannot, I > venture, be denied. What of his famous defeat of Grindelwald? > "Oh, now, I'm glad you mentioned Grindelwald," says Skeeter with a > tantalizing smile. "I'm afraid those who go dewy eyed over > Dumbledore's spectacular victory must brace themselves for a > bombshell? or perhaps a Dungbomb. Very dirty business indeed. All > I'll say is, don't be so sure that there really was the spectacular > duel of legend. After they've read my book, people may be forced to > conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from > the end of his wand and came quietly!" > > Smarmy & vicious she may be, but Rita Skeeter did get the inside > scoop on the "Life & Lies of AD" & much of her reporting turned out > to be correct. In this quote, IMO she's indirectly referring to the > DD/GG relationship, and implying that GG simply gave up when DD > finally confronted him - or even that GG voluntarily came to DD to > accept defeat. This would help explain why DD would be able to win a > duel when GG had the "unbeatable" elder wand. Maybe they never > dueled at all. > va32h: But why would Gellert do that? Why would he voluntarily give up his power and let himself be imprisoned just because his old pal Dumbledore asked him to? My interpretation of Rita's comments was that the duel was not a "duel" per se but Dumbledore fighting dirty, using such cruel and heinous methods that Grindelwald was forced to surrender. va32h From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 22 18:12:20 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:12:20 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178270 SSSusan, previously: > > > As to whether or not the masses expected DD to defeat GG, I > > definitely agree with Del that they expected him to at least > > try. My reading of DH led me to believe that DD was expected, in > > the same way that Harry was expected in his era, to go try for > > the simple reason that many believed them the only ones capable > > of pulling off the deed. > lizzyben: > And did DD ever fight GG? I'm thinking no. In her article, Rita > Skeeter refers to the DD/GG relationship & implies that GG simply > surrendered. > "I'm afraid those who go dewy eyed over Dumbledore's > spectacular victory must brace themselves for a bombshell? or > perhaps a Dungbomb. Very dirty business indeed. All I'll say is, > don't be so sure that there really was the spectacular duel of > legend. After they've read my book, people may be forced to > conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from > the end of his wand and came quietly!" > > Smarmy & vicious she may be, but Rita Skeeter did get the inside > scoop on the "Life & Lies of AD" & much of her reporting turned out > to be correct. This would help explain why DD would be able > to win a duel when GG had the "unbeatable" elder wand. Maybe they > never dueled at all. SSSusan: Heh. You may well be right about this! Who knows? Darn that Rita -- usually horribly, unfairly wrong, but in DH sometimes right! Still, even if he didn't have to do much, if GG conjured up that white flag & just surrendered, would DD have known this to be likely, going in? IOW, I don't think that this would speak to the issue of whether DD was, in fact, a *warrior*. That is, I still think his going in to take on GG (regardless of how it turned out, battle-wise) and his starting up & leading the Order made him a warrior. Siriusly Snapey Susan From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 18:15:54 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:15:54 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > Smarmy & vicious she may be, but Rita Skeeter did get the inside > > scoop on the "Life & Lies of AD" & much of her reporting turned out > > to be correct. In this quote, IMO she's indirectly referring to the > > DD/GG relationship, and implying that GG simply gave up when DD > > finally confronted him - or even that GG voluntarily came to DD to > > accept defeat. This would help explain why DD would be able to win a > > duel when GG had the "unbeatable" elder wand. Maybe they never > > dueled at all. > > > > va32h: > > But why would Gellert do that? Why would he voluntarily give up his > power and let himself be imprisoned just because his old pal > Dumbledore asked him to? > > My interpretation of Rita's comments was that the duel was not a > "duel" per se but Dumbledore fighting dirty, using such cruel and > heinous methods that Grindelwald was forced to surrender. > Montavilla47: Maybe Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald with the Power of Love? It is sort of odd how we hear that rumor and then we never get an answer about the famous duel. Can you give someone the power of the Elder Wand by surrendering it? Perhaps Dumbledore was able to appeal to whatever humanity Grindelwald had to persuade him to surrender and thus got the wand? I could see that falling into the theme of love. But it's certainly not played out in the text. It seems like one of those interpretations one *can* lift (or dig out) from the books, but can just as easily be denied. Montavilla47 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 18:19:22 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:22 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178273 > va32h: > > But why would Gellert do that? Why would he voluntarily give up his > power and let himself be imprisoned just because his old pal > Dumbledore asked him to? > > My interpretation of Rita's comments was that the duel was not a > "duel" per se but Dumbledore fighting dirty, using such cruel and > heinous methods that Grindelwald was forced to surrender. > > va32h lizzyben: There's obviously more to the story here (hey, fan fiction!) I've always wondered why we never heard about how DD defeated GG. At first everyone thought he killed him, then it's revealed that GG is still alive. (Yes, possible Flint, but go with me here) How could DD ever get a Dark Wizard to go to prison quietly? How could he defeat a wizard in a duel when that wizard had the "unbeatable" Elder Wand? However DD eventually defeated GG, I don't think it involved a duel. lizzyben From i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 18:06:21 2007 From: i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com (i_am_finally_me) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:06:21 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, The Final Chapter or just the beginning??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178274 The End of the latest Harry Potter has me thinking, since he has kids, will that really be the end?! Or just the beginning? Hogwarts still has tons of secrets, and so will the new headmaster. Draco and his kids will still wanna cause trouble, and start things like all Slytherin Kids, and his followers. Voldemort will still always have followers even though he's gone forever. So will Harry's Kids, have to deal with this?! Or will life just go on and they will all act like its all happily ever after?! i_am_finally_me From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 22 18:24:53 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:24:53 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178275 > lizzyben Smarmy & vicious she may be, but Rita Skeeter did get the inside > scoop on the "Life & Lies of AD" & much of her reporting turned out > to be correct. In this quote, IMO she's indirectly referring to the > DD/GG relationship, and implying that GG simply gave up when DD > finally confronted him - or even that GG voluntarily came to DD to > accept defeat. This would help explain why DD would be able to win a > duel when GG had the "unbeatable" elder wand. Maybe they never > dueled at all. > It is a very interesting suggestion that there was in fact, no duel. If that is the case then it becomes in some ways an earlier version of Harry's walk into the Forest to confront Voldemort. Did Dumbledore go to Gellert and just say 'This has to stop and I am here to stop you. You have the Elder Wand so a duel will result in my death. Is that what you want?' It does strike me as a very Dumbledorean scene and would fit in with his idea that love and the sacrifice it often entails, is in the end the only way to defeat evil. The rest of the WW without the knowledge that Gellert loved/had loved Dumbledore would have assumed that he had defeated him by Power and skill alone. This would also add a reason to Dumbledore's refusal to accept the post of Minister for Magic. It was offered by those who wanted the powerful vanquisher of Grindlewald in charge, when Dumbledore knew that he had not defeated him by use of 'power' at all. allthecoolnamesgone From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 22 18:27:17 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:27:17 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178276 Susan McGee: > It's interesting, Tonks. I have some areas of agreement with you. > I think celibacy is a fine choice...and I do think our American > popular culture is oversexualized. (Although I have met lots of young > people who argue that people should not be defined as gay, straight, > bi, etc., and that gender identity should be fluid). > *********** > I agree with others that it would have been far better had JKR not > created a "heteronormative" universe....where only heterosexuality is > seen, and that it would have been better to include a few lesbian and > gay characters here and there, kissing, or dating...otherwise you > have a witch/wizard versus muggle scenario...lesbians and gays are > among us, but are invisible. (Although I'll argue that Prof. Grubbly- > Plank was trans). Pippin: Professor Grubbly-Plank at least did not come to a tragic end of any kind. But if JKR had shown her, or Gilderoy Lockhart, engaged in same sex activity then it would have looked like flagrant stereotyping, OTOH, as she didn't, we're not sure what their orientation was. In the WW it doesn't seem to matter. But I can imagine what Uncle Vernon would assume. The trouble is, JKR can conjure a gender-blind universe, but she can't create a gender-blind readership. She can't do anything about gay-hating straights or self-hating gays who attribute negative behavior to gayness, closeted or not. Also, as you say, teenage sexual identity can be fluid, so if Harry had noticed some same sex student couples, it would be hard to know whether they were gay or just experimenting. And if it had been announced that there was going to be a gay couple in canon, we'd have been speculating about that instead of who is good or evil, or who is going to die. IMO, that would have taken us away from the story much more than any afterwords of JKR. While I get that some folks seem to think she's acting like an intrusive waiter in a restaurant, not only asking us how we liked the food but presuming to tell us how we should enjoy it, I think it'd be pretty absurd to treat her as if she's the one person in the universe who's not allowed to have an opinion about the books! Susan: > ....As for those who argue that Lupin was in fact another gay man, I > think I agree. His greatest joy seemed to come from his son. Now I AM > wondering why he showed up with Sirius in the afterlife. I understand > why Harry's parents and Sirius showed up, they were the three adults > who were closest to him, but was he that close to Lupin? Pippin: I got the impression Lupin's sexual identity was fluid, unlike Sirius who definitely had more of a gay vibe, especially in the Worst Memory where he ignored the girls making eyes at him. But, um, being a metamorphmagus surely Tonks could change her physical sexual characteristics if desired? Talk about infinite variety! (Sorry if that's squicky to anyone. But we do have people changing sex via polyjuice.) Lupin made Harry Teddy's godfather. I think JKR wanted readers to have the assurance that Lupin would understand that Harry was choosing to put himself in harm's way for the same reason that Lupin had, so that Teddy could have a better world to grow up in. It's different from fleeing domestic responsibilities to seek adventure. Pippin From marshsundeen at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 17:29:16 2007 From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:29:16 -0000 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178277 > Catlady wrote: > > I, however, *am* disturbed by it, because what is on the page looks > to me like Lupin never loved Tonks except as a friend, never wanted > to marry her or live with her, never wanted to have a child, and got > dragged into all those things against his (weak) will. He never > seemed particularly happy to be with her in public, gave no > impression that he was happy to be getting laid regularly, tried to > run away with Harry as an excuse to run away from her pregnancy. Marshallsundeen wrote: My understanding is that the Remus Lupin was uncomfortable or seemed unhappy to be with Tonks was due to the discrimination they were both being put under. Tonks was having trouble at the Ministry due to her marriage. Lupin was also afraid of passing the werewolf genes to his child. He was angry with himself for not showing restraint in marrying Tonks. Lupin felt responsible for the difficult times the couple faced. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 18:30:28 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:30:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, The Final Chapter or just the beginning??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178278 i_am_finally_me: The End of the latest Harry Potter has me thinking, since he has kids, will that really be the end?! Or just the beginning? Hogwarts still has tons of secrets, and so will the new headmaster. Draco and his kids will still wanna cause trouble, and start things like all Slytherin Kids, and his followers. Voldemort will still always have followers even though he's gone forever. So will Harry's Kids, have to deal with this?! Or will life just go on and they will all act like its all happily ever after?! i_am_finally_me Tiffany: The canonical novels themselves are over according to JKR, but the canon of the Potterverse, Hogwarts & WW will continue on after Potter much as it did before Potter. I'd say that because of LV's followers, he'd be a threat even if he, himself, is out of action. Potter may be forced to come back to Hogwarts to fight an evil there that he's not faced or known about during his tenure there, but it could be that his kids could deal with things there also. It'd be great if things were happily ever after there, but because DH left a lot of things up in the air I think there'll some guarantees of surefire troubles there. I love the fact that JKR left things up in the air after DH because though I love a good Hollywood ending to things a whole lot, it doesn't seem to be fair considering all that happened in DH that threatened to turn the whole Potterverse prior to then upside-down. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 18:07:07 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:07:07 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <21844.52907.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178279 Katie wrote: > So, every teenager that falls in love with another teenager is going > to be a pediphile? Del replies: I never said anything like that. Especially since I wasn't even talking of pedophilia anyway. > Would you make that assumption if DD's first love had been Minerva > McGonagall or some other woman, instead of a man? I really wonder. I really wish people would stop insinuating that I'm somehow dissing DD because I don't like him supposedly being gay. It's a dishonest maneuver to discredit the poster rather than the post, IMO. > I see absolutely NO evidence in canon that DD was EVER attracted to > young boys. I agree. But then nobody in this thread ever argued anything of that sort, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it. My own posts deal with ephebophilia, the love of teenage boys, not pedophilia, which is the love of young boys. Not the same thing at all. > And to say so, IMO, really denigrates the character and > the story. Does this help you understand how people who think there is something wrong with homosexuality feel about the revelation that DD is gay? Whatever you think of their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't change how they *feel* about the character and the story now. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 22 18:39:42 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:39:42 -0000 Subject: WW Racism? (was: Re: A Gay Potter Character?) In-Reply-To: <1524012859.20071022102227@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178280 Dave: > I agree that Jo's main goal is to use symbolism (anti-Muggle, > anti-Muggle-borns, &c.) to protest RW bigotry. > > On the other hand, in OoP, Draco's worthy-of-Don-Imus remark about > Angelina's dreadlocks makes me wonder if racism and other types of > Muggle bigotry are wholly absent from the WW. Magpie: That's not Draco's remark, but Pansy's, iirc. Regardless, I've always thought that line *didn't* indicate that. If Wizards don't see our races as being important--and the inclusion of Blaise I think indicates they don't--then why is Pansy's remark racist? It's racist for us because Angelina's braids (it's Lee who has dreadlocks) are tied up with her being black. If for Pansy Angelina might as well be white then she's just making fun of her hair and not liking her braids is no different than calling Hermione's hair bushy. If JKR meant it to be taken that way, I think that's a bit sloppy. Because there's nothing inherently racist in disliking a hairstyle. It's racist to dislike or put down a hairstyle because you associate it with a race. Imus using the phrase "nappy headed" being a good example, with all the history those words imply. "Nice braids--not!" without the history/social context is just "nice braids--not!" You can't have it both ways within the same canon. -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Oct 22 18:58:58 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:58:58 -0000 Subject: Authorial Backlash (was: Other News) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > It's the same thing with all these post-DH "revelations" that she > keeps coming out with. Contrary to "clearing up" some canon > questions, they seem to either muddy the waters worse or bring in > things that she did not put in the books. I find that very annoying. Allie: I certainly understand what everyone is saying, but she's giving interviews because there are thousands of people (not all children) that WANT to ask her questions, that WANT to know more details. I *don't* think she should make them up if she hasn't thought it out, and at least some of the details do seem to be spur of the moment. But it's not like she's going on TV and giving an interview against the wishes of the public - people want her to speak now because she couldn't speak for so long! And in the interviews, a lot of the time, she's answering questions that people are asking. Someone asked her if DD ever fell in love, so she answered. Allie (wondering when she became an advocate for Author's Rights and wondering if she can join JKR's payroll) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 19:11:30 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <472347.30354.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178282 delwynmarch wrote: Katie wrote: > So, every teenager that falls in love with another teenager is going > to be a pediphile? Del replies: I never said anything like that. Especially since I wasn't even talking of pedophilia anyway. <<>> > I see absolutely NO evidence in canon that DD was EVER attracted to > young boys. I agree. But then nobody in this thread ever argued anything of that sort, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it. My own posts deal with ephebophilia, the love of teenage boys, not pedophilia, which is the love of young boys. Not the same thing at all. ***Katie replying: Well, to me, that's splitting hairs. If an old man is digging on a teenage boy, that's just as gross and creepy as digging on a 10 year old. They're both children, regardless of their ages. So, IMO, it is a very similar thing, if not exactly the same thing. And I see no evidence that DD dug teenage boys, either. > And to say so, IMO, really denigrates the character and > the story. Does this help you understand how people who think there is something wrong with homosexuality feel about the revelation that DD is gay? Whatever you think of their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't change how they *feel* about the character and the story now. ***Katie replying: No, it doesn't help me understand, because since one of the major themes in HP is bigotry and how bad bigotry is, I am suprised that anyone who loves HP thinks homosexuality is wrong. I find that upsetting. I guess I am just naive. I am just sorry that JKR wasn't courageous enough to make DD gay in canon, instead of this backpedaling stuff in interviews. 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 leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 17:05:58 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:05:58 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <471CD876.8000503@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178283 Bart Lidofsky: > Here are a few problems I have with the cloak: I still want to know why Harry didn't use his cloak the way every other hormonally-driven teenage boy would have. --CJ From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 19:22:21 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:22:21 -0000 Subject: WW Racism? (was: Re: A Gay Potter Character?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Dave: > > I agree that Jo's main goal is to use symbolism (anti-Muggle, > > anti-Muggle-borns, &c.) to protest RW bigotry. > > > > On the other hand, in OoP, Draco's worthy-of-Don-Imus remark about > > Angelina's dreadlocks makes me wonder if racism and other types of > > Muggle bigotry are wholly absent from the WW. > > Magpie: > That's not Draco's remark, but Pansy's, iirc. Regardless, I've > always thought that line *didn't* indicate that. If Wizards don't > see our races as being important--and the inclusion of Blaise I > think indicates they don't--then why is Pansy's remark racist? It's > racist for us because Angelina's braids (it's Lee who has > dreadlocks) are tied up with her being black. If for Pansy Angelina > might as well be white then she's just making fun of her hair and > not liking her braids is no different than calling Hermione's hair > bushy. > > If JKR meant it to be taken that way, I think that's a bit sloppy. > Because there's nothing inherently racist in disliking a hairstyle. > It's racist to dislike or put down a hairstyle because you associate > it with a race. Imus using the phrase "nappy headed" being a good > example, with all the history those words imply. "Nice braids--not!" > without the history/social context is just "nice braids--not!" You > can't have it both ways within the same canon. > > -m Montavilla47: Yes, that taunt is kind of odd. It's tempting for us to see it as a racist remark, because of real world racism. But, in fifty years would anyone get that vibe? Probably not. However, a girl laughing at another girl for her hair is eternal--so it does help move the story away from a specific period in time. My main reaction to Pansy's taunt was, "Geez, Pansy. Is that *all* you can come up with?" Seriously. It just makes Pansy seem really unhip. On the whole, I like the way JKR used the Pureblood/ Half-Blood/Muggleborn prejudice to explore bigotry without tying it into a specific RW model. If I have a problem with what she did, it's that, like magic, it seemed to shift to fit the contrivances of the plot. So that it seems like the Death Eaters look down on both Muggleborn and half-bloods in OotP and the HBP. But, when that would be problematic to our view of Snape in DH, the half-blood prejudice disappears and the Muggleborn prejudice is blamed on the Muggleborns "stealing" magic. Because there is a racial mix of students at Hogwarts, and because the only mildly racial insult could just as easily be based on... hairism... I can safely say that race (as Muggles see it) is not an issue in the WW. Moreover, I have a handy WW metaphor for racism that I can use to stand in for RW racism when it comes to looking at bigotry. But other forms of bigotry cannot be explored at all within the confines of the books, since we have no defined gay or lesbian characters in the WW. With the revelation of Dumbledore's sexuality, it's almost impossible to determine how that actually impacted his character, since we have no point of reference, other than Rita's insinuations, which are not about Dumbledore being gay, but about him being... something bad... with Harry. Likewise, since none of the characters in the WW ever seem to attend church services or pray, it's impossible to explore religious bigotry. Unless I want to see Dumbledore as a stand-in religious figure and Voldmort as a stand-in Satanic figure. Which may help explain why readers tend to cate- gorize "good" and "evil" in Potterverse as the equivalents of "DD's Man" and "Death Eater." Montavilla47 From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 22 19:23:38 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:23:38 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178285 "delwynmarch" wrote: > > I agree. But then nobody in this thread ever argued anything of that > sort, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it. My own posts deal > with ephebophilia, the love of teenage boys, not pedophilia, which is > the love of young boys. Not the same thing at all. > so, as a female, when I was a teen, I had a love of teenage(young) boys. Was I ephebophialic? If I wasn't, then I guess, like others, I am confused why there would be a special term made for two teen males; whereas there is no such term for a teen female & teen male. colebiancardi From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 18:51:19 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:51:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as deity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178286 Dumbledore as deity Well, actually, I'm like Harry. I never really wondered about DD's past life or McGonagall's for that matter. I think that many of us are still recovering from the fact that DD made serious mistakes in his life (e.g. thinking about taking over the world for the greater good, being manipulative, and secretive) to the point where he had a big tragedy in his life (the death of his sister, and his estrangement from his brother). We can see where this would haunt him, and in fact, in his penitence and redemption for these errors, we can see how the pattern of the rest of his life was forged. He devoted his life to muggle rights, the rights of house elves, and giants, to educating young people and to fighting injustice. DD has always been my favorite character. Part of my dismay at the thought that Severus Snape was a double agent (with no principles) or was really a dyed in the wool DE, was that it would prove that DD was a fool who trusted too much. I love the fact that DD gave people second chances, and that one of the themes of the book is that good people can do bad things, and thoroughly unpleasant people can be ultimately fighting for the right. I love how he says that it our choices that define us. JKR says in one of her most recent interviews (which I love, more interviews, please!.. even the inconsistencies are fun!) that her message was in part not to necessarily trust everything the government says or what you read in the newspapers. She said she made DD flawed deliberately..and so she should have .NO ONE is perfect. Even our hero Harry should have listened to Hermione before dashing off into the Department of Mysteries .. Susan McGee From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 19:42:02 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:42:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0710221242w656e1c3ai990c8f3293e783a6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178287 AM: I agree with everything you say here. I always saw Remus and Sirius as a couple. Lynda: I never did. I know that others did, but I know enough unmarried people who live with other unmarried people (including myself) to decide that those people are a couple. It simply ain't always true. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 19:45:36 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:45:36 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <472347.30354.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > delwynmarch wrote: Katie wrote: > > So, every teenager that falls in love with another teenager is going > > to be a pediphile? > > Del replies: > I never said anything like that. Especially since I wasn't even > talking of pedophilia anyway. > > <<>> > > I see absolutely NO evidence in canon that DD was EVER attracted to > > young boys. > > I agree. But then nobody in this thread ever argued anything of that > sort, so I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it. My own posts deal > with ephebophilia, the love of teenage boys, not pedophilia, which is > the love of young boys. Not the same thing at all. > ***Katie replying: > Well, to me, that's splitting hairs. If an old man is digging on a teenage boy, that's just as gross and creepy as digging on a 10 year old. They're both children, regardless of their ages. So, IMO, it is a very similar thing, if not exactly the same thing. And I see no evidence that DD dug teenage boys, either. > > > And to say so, IMO, really denigrates the character and > > the story. > > Does this help you understand how people who think there is something > wrong with homosexuality feel about the revelation that DD is gay? > Whatever you think of their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, that > doesn't change how they *feel* about the character and the story now. > ***Katie replying: No, it doesn't help me understand, because since one of the major themes in HP is bigotry and how bad bigotry is, I am suprised that anyone who loves HP thinks homosexuality is wrong. I find that upsetting. I guess I am just naive. > > I am just sorry that JKR wasn't courageous enough to make DD gay in canon, instead of this backpedaling stuff in interviews. KATIE > > > ***Katie replying to her own post: I apologize if I sounded harsh. Gay rights are a very sensitive issue for me, as my beloved father is a gay man, of whom I am very proud. Maybe I should excuse myself from his discussion...for now, I will simply say that DD's being gay doesn't change my view of him, either positively or negatively. He is who he always was - kind, loving, trusting, naive, imperfect, and entirely beloved by me. I will leave my comments at that, for now.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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 20:34:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:29 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178289 SSSusan wrote: > > But. But. But didn't canon show us a Lupin who finally **allowed** himself to love Tonks fully after Harry yelled at him? In short, I don't think it was unrequited love at all on Tonks's part. I think Lupin just felt he could be nothing other than a burden or an embarrassment to Tonks and any offspring they might have, and he ran from the love he felt for her for that reason for a very long time. > > Alla responded: > > I do not know, dear. Trust me, I like your view and want you to be completely right on this one, I really do. > > As I said, sure I could buy Lupin's insecurities in HBP and could take him denying himself true happiness and people trying to convince him, etc. > > I am afraid that in DH his running away again is a bit too much that I could believably see true love there, which again does not mean that you are incorrect, just picture in my head. > > I guess, insecurities or not, I just cannot see man who truly loves the woman he **just married** much rather join the Trio on the horcruxes hunt. > > I have no doubt that he was truly happy when Teddy was born. I do not think he hated Tonks or anything like that, and I want to believe that he finally allowed himself to **love** her, but I just do not know. > > I felt so sad when I read about them both lying there dead, snif, but did Remus die in love? > > I do not know. > > Alla Carol responds: Here we have an excellent example of canon that's still open to interpretation. I tend to agree with SSS in this instance, but Alla's view is also valid, and there may be still other valid interpretations (as well as other points on both sides that weren't presented here). I sincerely hope that JKR *does not* state her views on whether Lupin really loved Tonks or was talked into it. I don't want her to tell the reader how to view the characters or what Lupin "really" thought. It's fine to tell us who Neville married (if she could just make up her mind and give them a place to live a little closer to Hogwarts). But I wish she'd leave the characters' thoughts and motives alone. Let us decide for ourselves, for example, how capable of reformation Draco is and why DD hesitated so long to fight Grindelwald. I know that others see JKR as the ultimate authority on everything Potter and are eager for mor information, but I say, now that the books are published, she should leave them to the readers. As for not answering questions that she's asked, if she stopped having public appearances, she wouldn't be asked questions. And she can limit any questions she answers on her website to "factual" matters. (I absolutely *do not* want to be told whose spell killed Ariana. OTOH, an explanation about potentially fatal spells other than AK might clear up some confusion. Then again, given her "explanation" of curses, hexes, and jinxes, maybe not.) Please, JKR. Let us continue to "just picture it in our heads," as Alla put it. Don't give us everything that *you've* pictured in your head and call it the correct interpretation. If it's not in the books, it's not canon. If it's in the books, it should be subject to interpretation. And that goes especially for the thoughts and motivations of characters other than Harry. Re DD's sexuality, some posters are complaining that he wasn't shown to be gay. Surely, the fact that he's 115 or 150 (depending on whether you believe the old interviews or the website, which matches better with 107-year-old Auntie Myrtle knowing the young DD but nevertheless gets his death date wrong) and the fact that Harry perceives DD as someone who was born old (there's a statement to that effect in DH though of course I'm paraphrasing wildly) has something to do with how he's depicted? And if he were openly gay, wouldn't JKR have been accused of stereotyping, what with the blue boots and knitting patterns and colorful robes? Carol, hoping that at least we never find out "what really happened" to Aberforth's goat From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Oct 22 20:39:10 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:39:10 +0200 Subject: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all. References: Message-ID: <005f01c814eb$9a6109e0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178290 > Tonks: > Rowling has been very successful in doing want so many have dreamed > of and failed to do. She has united all people of the world. People > of all ages, races, religions, and nationalities have embraced the > teaching of Albus Dumbledore as if he were a god. They have great > respect for DD. Through him she has give great lessons on moral > theology to people the world over. These are timeless lessons, given > us by others long before DD, but through him they are brought afresh > to the world of today. This is very good. And the unifying > influence of the HP series is also a good thing. Now Rowlings has > taken out the gun and shot herself in the foot. For whatever > personal reason, one can only guess. But it severs no useful purpose > to discredit her wisest of wizard in the eyes of millions of people > who do not share our world view. For example, the books are read by > many Muslims the world over and in places such as Iran. How do you > think those people are taking this news? All I can say, is what the > hell was she thinking!! Miles: I think your opinion is, to say the least, strange. But I'll begin with a few questions and answers. a) Does this new piece of information fit into canon of books 1-7? I think it does. We do not learn much about the private life of Dumbledore prior to DH, because Harry is not interested in it. But DD being gay totally fits in the story of DD and Grindelwald we are told. b) Could JKR have told us about it before DH? And/or in DH? No, I don't think so. For the first question: Since we do not learn anything about DD (Harry's POV), there was no chance to do it. We do not know anything about the private life of any teacher prior to DH. For the second - well, she could be more explicit in her Dumbledore/Grindelwald story. But do not forget, we do not have any firsthand information about it, neither from Grindelwald, nor from Dumbledore himself. And it is not likely that DD would tell Harry or any character in the books something about it. c) Did JKR really always thought of "DD being gay"? I'd think so, yes. We will never know exactly, because we cannot practice legilimency on her. But IMO it fits in her general behaviour concerning background information only she knows. Just remember her amused commentary about the Harry/Hermione shippers. That never there would be a romance between these two was absolutely clear to her, since she knows her characters and plans exactly. But is it as clear in the books? IMO not - I do not want to restart this old discussion, though. What I mean to say is this: JKR seems to have problems to seperate her background knowledge from what she really tells us in the books. So I really believe her, that she always "knew" DD is gay, and that she simply never told us before, because, and that's important, it would have given away a crucial point of DH before it was published. Sorry for extending the scope just to return to my bewilderment about Tonks' statement. Considering my answers being correct for the sake of the argument, should JKR really have held her tongue in order not to endanger her message of tolerance? Would it be better if she hadn't told the script author of the HBP film not to let DD speak of a girl he knew when he was young? Your argument seems to be, that with extending the message of tolerance in the books, she endangers the "tolerance impact" of the HP books, because it excludes people who will dismiss the series because DD is gay. But where would you like to draw the line? Racists won't like the book, because colour of skin and national background of people is not important for the wizarding world. Should JKR make Hogwarts a monoracial school just to make racists accept her books more easily? I really don't think that considering intolerance helps any message of tolerance. If there are Christian or Islamic fundamentalists who will boycot the books because JKR crossed this line - so what? If we begin to let intolerance dictate the limits of Enlightenment, we are lost. Miles From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 22 21:07:04 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:07:04 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178291 Carol: > Re DD's sexuality, some posters are complaining that he wasn't shown > to be gay. Surely, the fact that he's 115 or 150 (depending on whether > you believe the old interviews or the website, which matches better > with 107-year-old Auntie Myrtle knowing the young DD but nevertheless > gets his death date wrong) and the fact that Harry perceives DD as > someone who was born old (there's a statement to that effect in DH > though of course I'm paraphrasing wildly) has something to do with how > he's depicted? And if he were openly gay, wouldn't JKR have been > accused of stereotyping, what with the blue boots and knitting > patterns and colorful robes? Magpie: She's already made him a stereotype by having him a-sexual and celibate and only in the subtext. My preference would be that Dumbledore didn't have to carry the entire weight on his shoulders-- I'd have liked some regular students in the background as well with all the openly straight people. I've got no problem with him dressing flamboyantly, personally. Being a snazzy dresser isn't so hurtful a stereotype (especially in a world full of stereotypes) that it's better for his orientation to be hidden so that it doesn't exist at all. I mean, nobody noticed his dressing being enough of a deal that they thought he was absolutely gay as it stands. DH is mostly about his past, not his senior years, anyway. The Grey Lady's been dead for hundreds of years and she dumps her romantic past on Harry. Miles: b) Could JKR have told us about it before DH? And/or in DH? No, I don't think so. Magpie: I do. She could have easily fit in something in HBP, which is full of romantic hijinx. Dumbledore could, for intance, have responded to something Harry said or something they saw by sadly saying that sometimes you fall in love and the person turns out to be a bad person or whatever. You have to put your values over your personal love--just like Dumbledore's doing with Harry too. Harry would no doubt wonder what woman had done this with Dumbledore. Then in DH it would just become obvious he was talking about Grindenwald. She manages to stick in dozens of straight relationships or interactions in the present and the past with no problem. Harry does get glimpses or learn things about peoples' private lives, including some of his teachers. He learns a whole lot about Dumbledore's in DH. There's more than one character who could have confirmed it. Whatever reason it's not in there, it's not because it was impossible. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 21:12:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:12:16 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178292 Melissa wrote: > How many people really know about Harry's cloak though? > > Hermione, Ron, Sirius, Lupin, Pettigrew, & Hagrid of course. Did any other adult other than Dumbledore? Mr and Mrs Weasley? Professor McGonagall? The Twins?. Snape might have suspected it but I can't recall if he actually knew for certain about it. > Carol responds: Snape wore it in PoA before he went into the Shrieking Shack, remember? And he suspected (correctly) that Harry was wearing it on the stairs in GoF in the nighttime incident when Harry drops the golden egg and gets his foot caught in the trick stair. I suspect that Snape knew quite well that Harry was on the tower under the IC when he (Snape) had to kill DD, given that Snape would have seen the second broom and "put two and two together as only Snape could." (Fake!Moody, of course, also knew about it considering that he could see through it, but since he's soul-sucked at the end of GoF, it's a moot point. The real Moody also knows about it; he tells Harry in OoP that it will blow off as they're riding their brooms, so he Disillusions Harry, instead.) Draco (admittedly not an adult) knows about it as of HBP when he breaks Harry's nose and steps on his hand, so it's most likely that any adults connected with him knew about it, too, either because they told him or he told them. And someone (Lucius? Draco? Wormtail?) must have told LV since the DEs know about the cloak when HRH Apparate into Hogsmeade. (They don't, of course, know that it's the cloak made by Ignotus Peverell.) Carol, who thinks that the entire Order probably knows about it as well From Meliss9900 at aol.com Mon Oct 22 21:49:00 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:49:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178293 In a message dated 10/22/2007 2:24:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, muellem at bc.edu writes: No: HPFGUIDX 178294 In a message dated 10/22/2007 1:20:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com writes: The End of the latest Harry Potter has me thinking, since he has kids, will that really be the end?! Or just the beginning? Hogwarts still has tons of secrets, and so will the new headmaster. Draco and his kids will still wanna cause trouble, and start things like all Slytherin Kids, and his followers. Voldemort will still always have followers even though he's gone forever. So will Harry's Kids, have to deal with this?! Or will life just go on and they will all act like its all happily ever after?! i_am_finally_i_ I would love to see her continue to write in this universe but not as a new series of books. Rather I'd like to see her do "stand alone" stories with the 'mystery' resolved by the end of each book. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 22:12:18 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:12:18 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178295 Melissa: > After reading this thread I have to say that IMO people are misinterpreting the use of the term. I don't think that the original poster is saying that the love of a teen male for another teen male is ephebophiliac. The definition I find online is that it is the term for an *adult* male being attracted to an *adolescent* male. At least that my understanding of the OPs comments. As for the reason that there is no special term for teen female/teen male, blame the Ancient Greeks. ;-) Melissa Tiffany: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178123 If you'll view the following link to an earlier post of mine, you'll note that I took a class studying ancient cultures last year (ie. Classical Studies) & in Ancient Greece, males were frequently the apple of the eye, esp. very early on in nudity & sexuality. By the time Ancient Rome started to spring up, the trend had solidly shifted to females as the preferred nudity & sexuality object. It's also why gay & lesbian sex & romance was more prevalent in Ancient Greece than Rome, esp. in the early days of the culture. From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Oct 22 22:13:33 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:13:33 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Sorting Hat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178296 I would love to talk about the character development of Neville. I loved the part in the DH where he draws the sword of Gryfinndor from the Sorting Hat, and kills Nagini. How far has he come from the clumsy boy who forgot everything! I have always thought that he was forgetful because of the trauma of his parents being tortured into insanity by Bellatrix .that he was trying to forget about that! and it made him absent minded and forgetful. Post traumatic stress. I also think he was handicapped by not having a wand that chose him (we learned so much more about wand lore in DH Ollivander's exposition about how any wizard can use a wand, but will do his best work with the wand that chooses him was fascinating and speaks directly to the idea that one of the reasons that Neville had a hard time was because he had his father's wand.) Also, the self-confident young warrior who is leading the opposition to the Carrow's reign of terror at Hogwarts is a far cry from the little boy who was terrorized by Professor Snape (to the point that his boggart was Snape). I love the way that Harry is a part of Neville's development in Book 5, and how Neville is galvanized by the Lestranges escaping from Azkaban. And now we hear (Leaky Cauldron Sat. night Podcast) that the Sorting Hat almost put him in Hufflepuff. As DD said ..sometimes the SH sorts too soon .in this case, I gather it honored Neville's desire to be brave like his parents and to be in Gryffindor. All I could think about when I read that section in DH was "it takes a true Gryffindor to pull THAT out of the hat." Susan From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 22:49:36 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:36 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178297 > I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that > Dumbledore was gay. First, she managed to keep him "closeted" for > seven full books. Hardly a hint there that he was gay. > It could be worse, or course. She could have told us that Tom Riddle > was gay and that was the reason he turned to the Dark side and became > Voldemort. > > David Gunn lizzyben: Except... she sort of... did. *debates bringing this up, throws caution to the wind*. LV is not portrayed as heterosexual, at all. And yeah, red-eyed noseless monster isn't going to be getting many groupies (besides Bella), but even before that, Riddle is portrayed as uninterested in women in any way. The famous Elkins & others wrote a series of posts on this many years ago, examining the language that was used to create a gay subtext in the Riddle's scenes in COS & GOF, and how this subtext was supposed to increase the "unnatural" "wrongness" of the scenes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40118 Combine that with the reference in the interview comparing DD/GG to Bellatrix's "sick obsession" for LV, and we're not hearing much positive here. I think JKR had good intentions, but the way she actually portrayed homosexuality was more as something "wrong" & "tragic" rather than something normal or acceptable. And here, she first made clear that DD is Machievellian & obsessed w/power, & then reveals his orientation. Instead of all this melodrama, why couldn't she just show Hagrid & Slughorn shacking up together, or have an undeniably *good* gay character like Lupin or McGonegal? As is, the surface message of tolerance is undercut by a subtext that still presents homosexuality as "wrong". lizzyben From johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 06:34:15 2007 From: johnson_fan4evre48 at yahoo.com (johnson_fan4evre48) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:34:15 -0000 Subject: DD invisible? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178298 Amanda writes: It was never properly answered, why did James Potter leave the Invisibility cloak with DD if DD could go invisable on his own? Was it for use in the order, or did DD admire it and wish to use it becasue he did not have the power of invisibility? Why would DD give it to Harry so early in the story if he knew it would allow him to cause mischeif unless there was something he was guiding Harry to do for him? Why would DD think that a child so young deserved the right to face his parents' killer when he was a fully grown wizard even if his powers were dimminished at the time. Look what he did to Quirrel, and look how he could possess things and make things fly. How does that make it right to allow Harry to face his parents' killer when he still had power beyond what DD could think of. DD is supposed to keep all the children safe, not serve up one on a platter to keep the rest of them safe. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 23:24:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:24:04 -0000 Subject: DD and LV (Was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178299 delwynmarch wrote: > And by the way: there is even less evidence for DD being gay. Carol responds: I agree. So forgive me if I ignore your main argument (actually, I think that the attraction was primarily intellectual, but I've already stated my position on that) and focus on some of your supporting points. (BTW, it's good to have you back. It's been about two years, hasn't it?) Susan McGee (I think--the attributions are a bit hard to follow): > > > We don't know that he never confronted Tom Riddle. We do know he spent his life fighting Tom Riddle. > Del: > No he didn't. He only fought LV once LV came to power. He'd known for many long decades before that time that Tom Riddle was up to no good, but he did exactly *nothing* to thwart him right until LV started waging war on the WW. Carol responds: Forgive me, but I'm going to quibble here. He didn't do "exactly nothing." He told young Tom that there were laws in the WW and rules at Hogwarts and that thieving, for example, would not be tolerated. The result was a change in Tom's behavior that emphasized charm and charisma (rather like GG without the merriment), showing respect for the teachers that he probably did not feel and outwardly conforming to norms and rules. Unfortunately, the eagerness to learn combined with feigned humility and surface charm made him even more dangerous, more seductive in a nonsexual way to the Slytherin boys who idolized him and unsuspected by any adult except DD. But at least he wasn't openly using Dark magic like Grindelwald, who was actually expelled from *Durmstrang* (apparently for torturing his fellow students or experimenting on them in some way like some sort of magical junior Nazi). DD did undo most of the damage caused by DD's framing of Hagrid, giving him a job as (assistant?) gamekeeper. He made sure that Armando dippett didn't hire Tom Riddle as DADA teacher. And he went after information about the murders he suspected that Tom Riddle had committed, obtaining memories from, among others, Hokey the House-Elf and Morfin Gaunt before they died. The Caractacus Burke and Bob Ogden memories probably were obtained at that time as well. And he was keeping a watch on LV's movements. It seems that, despite their less than cordial relations, Aberforth was already spying for Albus at the time that Riddle again applied for the DADA post. He knew the names of Tom's traveling companions and that they called themselves Death Eaters. Perhaps, after the DADA encounter, he even suspected that LV was making Horcruxes based on his altered appearance. What else he suspected or did is not clear. He did not move *openly* against LV till he showed himself, true, and we don't know at what point he formed the first Order of the Phoenix, but he was certainly on the alert for trouble from him. I think he knew perfectly well that Riddle had murdered both Myrtle and the Riddles but could not prove it. (He may have understood Parseltongue, but he couldn't speak it and consequently, couldn't find and open the Chamber of Secrets. He did try to persuade the Wizengamot of Tom's guilt in the Riddle memory using Morfin's true memory, but by that time it was too late for a new trial; Morfin was dead.) Del: > Change GG to Tom Riddle, and it provides you with a perfect explanation for why DD didn't even try to stop Tom's rise to evil power. Carol: Didn't he? I've just outlined some of the steps he took. I'm not sure what else he could have done, not yet having a Snape to plant as a spy. He had some influence within the Wizengamot and may have persuaded some of them that Riddle was dangerous, but they could not take action before he was yet suspected of any provable crimes. And DD himself, for reasons that we think we know (fear of being tempted by power) refused to become MoM. I'm not sure what else he could do except form the Order of the Phoenix to counter the DEs. (And be a whole lot less secretive, but then he wouldn't be DD.) va32h wrote: > > Dumbledore suspected Tom regarding the basilisk, but did not know for certain, Del: > Then why not *try* and know for certain? Neither Tom nor DD ever said anything about DD actually investigating the murder of Myrtle. He didn't talk to Tom, he didn't talk to any of Tom's gang, nothing. DD admitted that Tom's years at Hogwarts were marked by increasing nastiness, but nobody ever indicated that DD ever *did* anything about this nastiness. DD admits that he strongly suspected Tom, Tom says that DD never trusted him and was always keeping a watchful eye on him, but that's it. No *action*. Just wearily looking at what is going on, just like he was doing with GG. Carol: What could he do besides what I've already outlined? He couldn't find the CoS, which would prove that Myrtle was killed by a Basilisk and not by an Acromantula. And talking to Moaning Myrtle, who only remembered a pair of great big yellow eyes, wouldn't help much, even if the Wizengamot accepted the testimony of a ghost, especially if Acromantulas also happened to have great big yellow eyes. DD wasn't the headmaster, and the headmaster trusted Riddle. He had no proof of Riddle's guilt, only suspicions. The same thing with the nasy incidents that Tom made sure could not be traced to him and his friends. And what could possibly be accomplished by talking to Tom, who would deny everything, except make clear to Tom where his greatest danger would ultimately come from? Va32: > > and it's very much Dumbledore's nature to give people the benefit of the doubt. > Del: > That's the image he likes to project, but I don't buy it. That's nothing more than a handy excuse to justify not taking action IMO. Carol: I'm not sure about "the image he likes to project," but I do agree that giving people the benefit of a doubt (second chances, as the HP characters refer to it) is more the impression that DD gives than his actual "nature." DD had very good reasons for giving Snape a second chance, but benevolence was rather far down the list. He did help Hagrid recover from his disgrace, but Hagrid was a child and an orphan with no other protector. (To be sure, Tom was also an orphan and a child to begin with, but he was never vulnerable or in need of protection.) He also gave Trelawney a second chance after she failed her job interview, but she, too, needed protection, both for humanitarian and practical reasons. Tom is a different matter. First there's no benefit of the doubt (or second chance) involved. DD never trusted him to begin with, and made certain that he didn't get the DADA position on either attempt. And I don't see how he could "take action" when Tom had done nothing that he could be proven guilty of. When DD had a chance, he *did* gather evidence. Had both Hokey and Morfin not died, DD could have presented evidence that they were not guilty of the murders they were framed for. As it was, they died "guilty" of Toms's crimes. Va32: > > Dumbledore did speak to Tom directly - but in that Dumbledore way of trying to get the guilty party to voluntarily fess up. > Del: > Except that DD already knew perfectly well that Tom only fesses up when forced to do it. Remember the stash of stolen objects at the orphanage? Tom only confessed because he realised that DD already knew all about it. Carol: In which case, I really don't see the point in talking to Tom, who already knew that DD suspected him. > We know what DD's feelings towards Snape are because we are *shown* their interactions. We don't need to infer from some indirect clues. We are shown DD telling Snape "you disgust me", we are shown DD dismissing Snape whenever Snape goes on a rant about Harry, we are shown DD publicly humiliating Snape by stealing the House Cup from under Snape's nose and handing it to Gryffindor, and so on. So we know that DD definitely doesn't have a crush on adult Snape. Carol responds: Although I certainly agree that DD did not have a crush on Snape (who was several generations younger than DD was), either as an adult or as a boy. But you're being a bit selective in your evidence here. DD's "you disgust me" is a response to one specific incident. Clearly, he does not retain that feeling. "I'm fortunate to have you, Severus, very fortunate" is one of many counterexamples. Ultimately, DD trusted Snape with both his life (the ring Horcrux) and his death. You don't give that kind of trust to a man who disgusts you. And he fears for Snape when he sends him on that dangerous mission near the end of GoF, unable to speak for several minutes after Snape leaves. Snape is both his employee and his trusted agent, and at times he's remarkably tolerant of him. I think that they respect each other and there's an undercurrent of affection that neither shows openly, both being reserved men who have been deeply hurt in the past. That, of course, is just my view, but judging the Snape/DD relationship by "you disgust me" is like judging Ron/Hermione by "no wonder she hasn't got any friends" or by Hermione's canary attack on Ron. (Not that I'm suggesting a romantic relationship between Snape and DD. I'm absolutely not. I'm just saying that the encounter between the supposedly loyal DE and the man who knows that he reported the Prophecy to LV cannot be used as the basis for their subsequent relationship. DD would not have hired Snape to teach Potions, for example, had he not already begun to trust him and had he not already risked his life for Lily's sake and to atone for his huge and terrible mistake. Anyway, I do agree that it's obvious that DD does not have a crush on Snape. There's still some evidence for a fatherly relationship toward a prodigal son, DD's sexual orientation notwithstanding, but it was obviously a slow process and we would need to place all the Snape/DD scenes in a chronological sequence to see it since the lens of "The Prince's Tale" distorts it somewhat. His last words in life are spoken to Snape, "Severus, please!" He is begging the man he trusts above all others to do the thing that no one else can do, kill him at his own request. Portrait!DD's last words to Snape are a warning to be very careful (to which Snape tells him not to worry' he has a plan). Dead!DD expresses regret for Snape's death ("Poor Severus!"), which results from the flaw in the plan. Del: > Anywhere. Just a small picture of DD with another man somewhere in the Headmaster's office, and Harry realising in passing what it means, would have been enough. Instead, we get to hear again and again about Fawkes and the softly stirring silver instruments. Carol: Or the exchanges with Snape and Fudge and Lucius Malfoy and so forth, not one of which gives any indication of DD's sexual orientation--or any indication that he is or ever has been a sexual being. Certainly, that thought never occurs to Harry. > Del: > > Dumbledore's feelings for Harry are paternal. They are so blatantly paternal (IMO of course) that I can't imagine how anyone could read them otherwise! Dumbledore's whole speech at the end of OoTP about Harry being too young to know his fate, wanting him to be happy, not wanting to burden him with adult responsibilities - everything about that interaction screams father-son to me. Carol: Not so much paternal as grandfatherly, IMO. All those remarks about the difference between youth and age. It's rather like Gandalf and Frodo in that respect, with a hundred years' difference rather than a thousand or two. That and DD's invariable smugness about his intellectual superiority, but I suppose he does that with everybody (except dear Gellert). A bit annoying, actually. > And what about before the rise to power? GG didn't just lie still all that time. He was actively preparing his rise to power. But we have absolutely no indication that DD ever did anything to change GG's mind or prevent him from rising to power in the first place. Carol responds: We really don't have much information here, but I do think that DD turned a blind eye to what GG was doing--and we know he turned a deaf ear to the pleas of the British WW for five years. My impression is that while the threat was confined to continental Europe, the British WW in general left GG alone, but when he started looking toward Britain, they grew afraid and turned to DD, who waited five years before finally confronting his old friend and co-conspirator, whatever his feelings for him had become. (Was it really just fear that he, DD, had killed Ariana? Was it residual love for a mass murdererer? Was it guilt? Was it cowardice? Maybe DD himself didn't know. We all put off unpleasant confrontations, but not quite on that scale) > Del: > Exactly the same thing as happened later on with Tom Riddle. Carol: I completely disagree. See the evidence presented above. And I think we can safely say that there's no indication that DD ever plotted with LV to take over the world, nor was he under any delusions about his goodness. DD lied to himself about Gellert Grindelwald. But he was much older and wiser when he met the eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, and he made it quite clear who was in charge during their first encounter. DD was "the only one [Voldemort] ever feared. I don't think that Grindelwald (who, for all his faults, died bravely, contemptuously defying the upstart LV) was afraid of anyone, even in that 1945 duel, which, unfortunately, we didn't get to see. Carol, wishing for the old Dumbledore of the first four books, whom she had no difficulty liking despite occasional bouts of arrogance From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 23:45:44 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:45:44 -0000 Subject: DD and LV (Was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > Dead!DD expresses > regret for Snape's death ("Poor Severus!"), which results from the > flaw in the plan. > Montavilla47: I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me how Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die undefeated, so that the wand would lose its power. Also, a key part of the plan was for Snape to kill Dumbledore, thus fooling everyone into thinking that he had defeated Dumbledore. Dumbledore was also sure that Voldemort would be looking for a replacement wand, and that he would be attracted to and distracted by a quest for the legendary Elder Wand--which could be fairly easily traced to Dumbledore. The brilliant part was that, when Voldemort inevitably found the wand, it would be useless to him. His natural conclusion would be that the wand didn't work for him because it belonged to Snape. The only difference from that plan to what actually happened is that Draco accidently got the mastery, and Harry got it from Draco. But, as far as Voldemort and Snape were concerned, that didn't make any difference. Voldemort was still going to think that Snape had the mastery of the wand, and he was still going to want to murder Snape to obtain it. So, how was Snape getting killed not part of the original plan? Montavilla47 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 23:57:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:57:27 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178301 > Susan: > I loved the part in the DH where he draws the sword of Gryfinndor > from the Sorting Hat, and kills Nagini. zgirnius: You and a gazillion other fans, myself included! > Susan: > How far has he come from the clumsy boy who forgot everything! > I have always thought that he was forgetful because of the trauma > of his parents being tortured into insanity by Bellatrix .that he > was trying to forget about that! and it made him absent minded and > forgetful. Post traumatic stress. zgirnius: I have always preferred the idea that he is simply forgetful. Not everyone is blessed with a great memory! Neville was also never very strong academically (except in Herbology, and DADA after he started to really put in a lot of work). I think like that about him, he's really a lot more of an 'everyman' character than Harry. > Susan: > I also think he was handicapped by not having a wand that chose > him zgirnius: Perhaps, though Neville did get his wand over the summer before DH, and we do not hear of any great improvement in his spellwork. In the final battle, he uses Herbology rather than spells. > Susan: > Also, the self-confident young warrior who is leading the > opposition to the Carrow's reign of terror at Hogwarts is > a far cry from the little boy who was terrorized by Professor > Snape (to the point that his boggart was Snape). zgirnius: Neville was depicted as more fearful in earlier books, I agree. However, at the same time he was always portrayed as brave. The PS/SS "standing up to his friends" is just one example. I can also recall instances of his wanting to attack Crabbe and Goyle, and having to be restrained by his housemates. (The one specific instance I recall is outside the Potions classroom in OotP, when Draco makes a comment about people whose minds have been damaged by magic). To me, therefore, the change is not so much about Neville becoming more brave - I think he always was. It is more about developing the outward confidence that you mention. > Susan: > And now we hear (Leaky Cauldron Sat. night Podcast) that the > Sorting Hat almost put him in Hufflepuff. zgirnius: I think that would not have been a mistake by the hat, either. Loyal, hardworking, and valuing fairness/justice also fits him quite well. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 23:56:01 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:56:01 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471D3891.5010401@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178302 I think at this point the whole discussion needs to be moved over to OT_Chatter. And I don't know why I'm jumping in here, because Del seems perfectly capable of defending his own views, except that I empathize with his predicament -- when the whole list seems to be working overtime to MISunderstand what he's saying. > so, as a female, when I was a teen, I had a love of teenage(young) > boys. Was I ephebophialic? Ephebophilia (or hebephilia, as it's also called) is defined as sexual attraction to teenage boys when there is at least a five-year difference in age and when the sexual attraction "interferes with other relationships, becomes an obsession which adversely affects other areas of life, or causes distress to the subject." (That's from Wikipedia, which took me all of thirty seconds to look up.) As the Wikipedia article also points out, attraction to teenagers is common to adults of all sexual orientations; it only becomes pathological when the attraction becomes exclusive. BTW, I'm not agreeing with Del here about DD. But I DO understand what he's saying, think he presented his arguments quite clearly, and wonder why anyone else is so confused about his point. --CJ From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:42:48 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:42:48 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178303 Susan: I loved the part in the DH where he draws the sword of Gryfinndor from the Sorting Hat, and kills Nagini. Tiffany: Almost all Potter lovers I know of love it also, myself being one of them. zgirnius: I have always preferred the idea that he is simply forgetful. Not everyone is blessed with a great memory! Neville was also never very strong academically (except in Herbology, and DADA after he started to really put in a lot of work). I think like that about him, he's really a lot more of an 'everyman' character than Harry. Tiffany: I agree, I think he's more of an average Joe Blow type than Potter. Heck when I first read about him I felt more kinship to him than Potter. He wasn't all that bad or good academically, save Herbology & a few other non-magical classes. Neville reminds me more of a "working person's hero", but I didn't think he was a great leader when compared to others. From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Oct 23 00:36:20 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:36:20 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > J.K. Rowling stated that Albus Dumbledore fell in love with GG. > > They were both the same or around the same age. It was an equal > > relationship with someone of the same age (if in fact they had a > > relationship, we don't know). > >snip> > See, if GG had been a grown man when DD fell in love with him, then > the case would be closed. But he wasn't. He was a youth. > > Oh, okay, so if a 17 year old boy fell in love with a 17 year old girl -- and we don't KNOW that he had adult relationships later, then we might think ah ha! He's going to be a child sexual abuser (any adult who has sexual contact with a child or youth up to age 18!). 17 and 18 year olds tend to fall in love with other 17 or 18 year olds. Period. DD was having a totally appropriate experience for a 17 or 18 year old boy who was gay - he fell in love with someone his own age. Another point -- there seems to be a rule created by some on this list that what JKR says in interviews is not canon. Others believe it is canon (and we can all respectfully disagree about it.) And she says DD is gay. Not that he is a pervert who yearns after young good looking boys. Even if it is NOT canon, I would suggest that the author's statement should be considered evidence. I also see NO evidence that DD is a pervert. DD is totally appropriate in his conduct with all the children. Vis a vis the distinction between pedophilia and ephebeophilia... It is correct that the DSM-IV says that pedophila is a disorder that some people have that they are attracted to children under 13. They lump that attraction in with things like bestiality, non-consent and pain as similar types of disorders. The term ephebeophila is a recent term - not used by many researchers - to differentiate attraction to children from attraction to teenagers. Many of us in the professional field of child sexual abuse would not make that distinction. (The page on wikipedia about it rightly has notations that there are problems with research and objectivity). The term was used by Mark Foley's attorney to try to excuse his actions (i.e. Foley is not a pedophile; he's a ephebeophile!) It's not an established part of the science of sexuality, psychology, psychiatrity, etc. Susan McGee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 01:03:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:03:08 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178305 I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind you :)). Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. Now there is a little restriction I want to place here. Obviously I cannot stop anybody from talking about, you guessed it SNAPE, but since I am starting the game, would be nice if we played by my rules, MAHAHAHAHAH. So, YEAH. If your favorite character is Snape, please tell us about your second favorite character moment or moments. Where you loved this character's behavior and where you wanted to slap him/her. Now, just to show you how fair I am being with my restrictions, SNAPE is not the only character I am going to exclude from this game. I am excluding two of my absolutely very favorite characters - HARRY and SIRIUS. So, to sum up, please talk about your favorite characters in this thread, their best and worst moments. Just please do not talk here about Snape, Sirius or Harry. To start, I will talk about my third favorite character of all time - Ron. One of my Ron's favorite moments is of course him offering himself to Sirius, whom he believes to be a murderer. Yeah, I loved Chess game, I loved when Ron so faithfully stood by Harry during OOP. Oy, I have so many of Ron's moments I love. My least favorite Ron's moment is the one of him abandoning Hermione and Harry. I am so understanding Ron's moment in GoF ( still want to slap him, but understand). But here we go again, I really thought Ron was over his insecurities by now. Grow up, Ron. I am glad that he did grew up. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 01:07:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:07:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin in "The Forest Again" (was:I am so happy. There is a gay couple ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178306 Susan McGee wrote: > ....As for those who argue that Lupin was in fact another gay man, I > think I agree. His greatest joy seemed to come from his son. Now I AM wondering why he showed up with Sirius in the afterlife. I understand why Harry's parents and Sirius showed up, they were the three adults who were closest to him, but was he that close to Lupin? Carol responds: I don't see how a man's joy in his newborn son (who could easily have been a daughter except that JKR apparently wanted him to parallel Harry) counts as evidence that he's homosexual. I saw it as evidence that he had settled down to the role of happy family man and proud father. That aside, you're asking an interesting question here. Why *does* Lupin show up, along with Harry's parents and godfather, since he really doesn't qualify as a loved one? (*JKR* wants him there as a substitute for Arthur Weasley, who was originally intended to die in OoP, but that doesn't explain why *Harry* wants him.) Sure, Lupin was one of Harry's favorite teachers, if not his all-time favorite, and they had private lessons together (as Harry also did in later books with both Snape and DD), but we don't see him at all in GoF and, in the later books, he's not particularly close to Harry. In DH, they argue more than they agree, and, in one of my favorite moments, Harry tells Lupin off for being a coward (leading to his decision to behave like a responsible husband and return to his pregnant wife). Possibly, he's included in the group because Harry likes having the good Marauders (and his mother) reunited, but that's a pretty pathetic reason for Harry to wish for his company as he walks to what he thinks will be his death. Maybe he wants a substitute for Dumbledore, the mentor he believes has "betrayed" him, and his old DADA teacher, the man who taught him to cast a Patronus, is a good substitute. But I think that Harry is also feeling guilty that people have died because of him, and he's especially unhappy about Lupin's death because the last time he saw him, they quarrelled. (It reminds me of Molly worrying that the Twins would die without having a chance to make up with her.) As he listens to Lupin on Pottercast talking about Harry as "a symbol of everything for which we are fighting," Harry feels " a mixture of gratitude and shame" and wonders whether Lupin has forgiven him "for the terrible things he had said when they had last met" (DH Am. ed. 441). It's pretty clear to me that Lupin has not only forgiven him but realized that the "terrible things" were actually sound advice, but Harry apparently remains in some doubt even after Lupin names him as godfather to his son a few months later. And then Lupin dies fighting for Harry in the battle that gives him and his friends time to find one Horcrux and destroy two. Glimpsing the bodies of Tonks and Lupin in the Great Hall immediately after witnessing Snape's death, Harry can't bear to think how many people have died for him. Although he blames himself specifically for Fred's death, he's thinking of Tonks and Lupin, too (662). After Harry's excursion into Snape's memories, the images of Fred, Tonks, and Lupin lying dead in the Great Hall appear in his mind and he thinks that he has failed (693). Then he remembers the Resurrection Stone and understands that he is not bringing the unspecified "them" back. They are "fetching him" (698). The newly dead Lupin shows up as a natural member of the group, not that he's deserting Tonks, also newly dead. She simply is not a member of the group of parental figures that give Harry the courage he needs to join them (as he thinks). And Harry, blurting out that he didn't want any of them to die, specifically addresses Lupin with his apology. "'. . . I'm sorry--' He addressed Lupin more than any of them, beseeching him. '--right after you'd had your son. Remus, I'm sorry'" (700). "Remus." It's the first and only time that he uses Lupin's first name, addressing him as a friend and begging his forgiveness. Lupin's response, that he died trying to make a better world for his son, seems to give Harry comfort. At least he doesn't pursue the subject. He exchanges a few words with the other three, seeking comfort of a different sort ("You'll stay with me?") and then the four walk on with him silently until he drops the stone and faces Voldemort alone (except for the Death Eaters and the bound and captive Hagrid). Why was Lupin there? As a father figure, a friend of his dead father and godfather, a friend in his own right, at last, once he found the courage to set aside his self-loathing and be a man and a father. I think he has proven himself worthy, in Harry's view, to be with his own parents, who died to save him, and his godfather, who died trying to protect him. "My father died trying to protect my mother and me," Harry tells Lupin at 12 GP, and you reckon he'd tell you to go on an adventure with us? . . . I'd never have believed this. The man who taught me to fight dementors--a coward" (214). After Lupin leaves in a rage worthy of Snape, Harry rells Ron and Hermione, "Parents shouldn't leave their kids unless--unless they've got to" (215). And Lupin *had* to leave his child at the end, to fight for a better world for him. So having Lupin join Lily, James, and Sirius gives him and Harry the moment of reconciliation and mutual understanding that they didn't get in life, despite Harry's being made Teddy's godfather, it gives Harry the chance to apologize directly to one of the people for whose deaths he feels responsible, and it honors Lupin's courage in giving his life to make a better world for his son after his too-brief acceptance of the duties of a father in life. Lupin, like Snape in his very different way, has redeemed himself and earned a peaceful afterlife. And the burden of his lycanthropy has passed from him forever. Carol, who thinks that Harry's unconscious choice to include Lupin among the loved ones who give him courage makes perfect sense from Harry's perspective and from Lupin's, assuming that Lupin had any choice in the matter From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 23 01:14:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:14:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: <471CD876.8000503@yahoo.com> References: <9991046.1193062635487.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <471CD876.8000503@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <471D4AF0.7030104@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178307 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > I still want to know why Harry didn't use his cloak the way every other > hormonally-driven teenage boy would have. I think he may not be as hormonally charged as most; look at his Fleuresistance. Bart From marion11111 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 01:37:15 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:37:15 -0000 Subject: A Gay Potter Character?/Remus and Tonks/Trouble with Being Gay/JKR shut up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178308 > Magpie: > If that's true I'd really feel badly for Arthur Levine. It would > break his heart to be told he had to cut gay characters from a book > in his imprint because they were gay--and he'd probably fight tooth > and nail to get them in there. Not that I accept this is what > happened. It's hard for me to think that Harry Potter's book sales > would be cut into that much because there was one gay character. > (Meanwhile Pullman's happily writing gay angels in his best- > sellers...) > marion11111: Had to laugh at the last line! I suppose Pullman's books do qualify as best-sellers, but they don't get read much; at least not by kids. This is hard to explain, but Harry Potter is widely read, Alex Rider is widely read, The Clique is widely read, Ramona used to be widely read, etc. His Dark Materials doesn't get read much because it's so darn difficult! Anyone who is able to get through these books is probably the type of person to not flip out over gay angels and horny witches and church/religion-bashing. I said it on the OTChatter: Harry Potter is like nothing we've seen before in children's publishing and so can't really be compared to anything else. And let's face it, those angels aren't Dumbledore. People feel so strongly about the characters in HP and talk about them as if they were real people. Gay Dumbledore is clearly a Big Deal. I can't think of any other popular children's book with such a major character being gay. Sorry to go completely OT. From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 01:37:58 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:37:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178309 > > Del scratches her head and answers: > I spent an entire post doing just that, so I don't understand exactly > what you're expecting from me here? > > *** > > Susan McGee wrote: > > I would be outraged and stricken if JKR were to say that DD was > > fixated on young boys or attracted to young boys. > > Del replies: > So would I. But that wasn't the point of my post. > > > I do not believe that canon supports the idea that DD was attracted > > to and spied upon adolescent boys and was romantically or sexually > > infatuated with them. There is no evidence for this fact. > > Yes there is. I presented that evidence in my first post. You can > choose to interpret that evidence differently than I do, but you can't > say it's not there. Sorry, Del, but no there isn't. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in any of the seven books that indicate the adult Dumbledore was ever attracted to adolescent boys. His infatuation with Grindlewald was completely age-appropriate. It most certainly was not evidence of a pathology. It seems that if we accept your judgment of Dumbledore, then every 18 year old boy that falls in love with a 16 year old girl is a pedophile. Which is, to quote Vernon, a load of tosh. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 01:44:15 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:44:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD invisible? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461A6A39ADF8475183F6B34A87D409DC@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178310 > > Amanda writes: > > It was never properly answered, why did James Potter leave the > Invisibility cloak with DD if DD could go invisable on his own? > Was it for use in the order, or did DD admire it and wish to use > it becasue he did not have the power of invisibility? Er, have you read Deathly Hallows yet? It's pretty well explained there. Check out Chapter 35, King's Cross. Page 720 in the American Scholastic edition. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 01:47:07 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:47:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178311 > lizzyben: > > There's obviously more to the story here (hey, fan fiction!) I've > always wondered why we never heard about how DD defeated GG. At > first everyone thought he killed him, then it's revealed that GG is > still alive. (Yes, possible Flint, but go with me here) How could DD > ever get a Dark Wizard to go to prison quietly? How could he defeat > a wizard in a duel when that wizard had the "unbeatable" Elder Wand? > However DD eventually defeated GG, I don't think it involved a duel. > ' Draco managed it with a simple Expelliarmus. I can't help but think that Dumbledore couldn't figure something out. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 23 02:19:51 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:19:51 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <471D3891.5010401@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178312 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > so, as a female, when I was a teen, I had a love of teenage(young) > > boys. Was I ephebophialic? > > Ephebophilia (or hebephilia, as it's also called) is defined as sexual > attraction to teenage boys when there is at least a five-year difference > in age and when the sexual attraction "interferes with other > relationships, becomes an obsession which adversely affects other areas > of life, or causes distress to the subject." (That's from Wikipedia, > which took me all of thirty seconds to look up.) As the Wikipedia > article also points out, attraction to teenagers is common to adults of > all sexual orientations; it only becomes pathological when the > attraction becomes exclusive. > colebiancardi: as wiki points out, this term is full of issues and its research methods - hence my TOTAL disregard with wiki's defination. Sometimes being able to look things up quickly isn't the same as actually getting to the real meaning behind the word. Wiki is great, but you have to look at who has been editing this term and look at the discussion behind it. I am interested in why someone would think that DD has this condition and what that term means to them. The only interest DD had with another male was GG and that WAS age-appropriate. It was not the Foley scandel as others pointed out. DD never exhibited, IMHO, any inappropriate behavior toward the young males at Hogwarts. He exhibited normal behavior and concerns towards all the youngsters there. Just because DD is gay doesn't mean he lusts after young teens. And I don't believe that is what JKR intended for anyone to get out of her declaration that DD is gay. colebiancardi (who is washing her hands of this thread) From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 02:21:11 2007 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:21:11 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178313 However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the fact that JKR has definitely damaged the long-term viability of this series. There are legions of people who are viscerally disturbed by homosexuality, and I'm afraid that homophobia is not going anywhere fast. While this stunt has certainly worked to her benefit in the short term (i.e. the megalomaniac who was feeling empty and starved for attention has gotten her name back in the paper), it will accomplish nothing in the long term but to limit her audience and stifle exposure of her book to children of future generations. There was a time when I thought JKR was a pop culture genius who, like Oprah, would maintain the popularity of her work by 1) refusing to take an explicit side in the battle of left vs. right and 2) allowing her audience to read WHAT THEY WANT TO READ. The "Dumbledore is gay" hints were all there for people who wanted to take them. It's a shame she had to rain on the parade of the people who liked their Dumbledore straight. JKR is no Oprah. Instead she has revealed herself as more akin to Britney/Paris/Lindsey, using base attention grabbing tactics to keep her name in the headlines. I pity her and I pity the countless generations of future children who won't get to read Harry Potter because JKR needed a headline. Shame on her. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 02:48:38 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:48:38 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178314 > Alla: > I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind > you :)). Mike: OK, I'll bite, I mean I'll take a stab at it, I mean... you know. > Alla: > I am excluding two of my absolutely very favorite characters - > HARRY and SIRIUS. Mike: Crap, you're taking my #1 and #3, and you did my #2. > Alla: > So, to sum up, please talk about your favorite characters in this > thread, their best and worst moments. Mike: OK, I'll do my #4 - Remus Lupin My favorite book is still PoA so he had a lot of moments in my fav book. One-liners: "I haven't poisoned that chocolate, you know" "I daresay you've had enough of tea leaves?" Minor moments: "Wadiwasi" and the gum shoots up Peeves nose. LOL, first time I saw someone get the better of Peeves. "Mr. Mooney peresents his compliments to Professor Snape and begs him to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business." OK, this was really some younger Lupin, but it's still him and it was the first thing the map wrote. HA, take that Sev old boy!! Best moment wasn't just a moment, more like three chapters, but it starts with his line: "Of course I know how to work it,... I helped write it. I'm Moony --" Then Remus gives us the Marauders backstory, at least a large portion of it. I so loved getting this info, even while it made no sense, in hindsight, for him to go off on such a long exposition at this time. And of course, this led to the greatest plot twist in the whole series, IMO, the outing of Peter Pettigrew. I think sometimes we forget how great JKR's ability to amaze and surprise us was. C'mon now, I dare anyone to say the saw this coming with a straight face.;) Now for the worst moment. Easy, when he volunteers to go with the Trio with Tonks at home, pregnant with Teddy. He magically smacked Harry, but he was the one that deserved the smack. It was the culmination of all the weak moments Lupin accumulated throughout the series. Hey, I said he was my #4 and this is about favorite characters, not most *liked* characters. Mike, who had such good ones for Sirius, his #1 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 23 02:48:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:48:42 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178315 Alla wrote: > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and > least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. Potioncat, jumping up and down: Snape! it's Snape. He doesn't have any worst moments but I have a long parchment of best m.... Alla frowns sternly: >hem hem > Now there is a little restriction I want to place here. If your favorite character is Snape, please tell us about > your second favorite character moment or moments. Potioncat: Hmmm. That would be Molly or Arthur or Minerva. Might depend on the book. I'll say Minerva McGonagall. Her best moment was any one with Umbridge...or was it "Tripe, Sybil?" or no, it was when she told Neville he just lacked confidence. Her worst was when she didn't protest Harry's Cruciatus. Alla smiles at Potioncat and says, "Very nice dear, I know how difficult that must have been. Potioncat nods, "Yes it was. So could I just slip in that the tooth thing wasn't very nice? "No!" "Oh, Bother." From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 03:13:50 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:13:50 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind > you :)). > va32h: I'll play, but you've excluded Harry and Sirius and stolen my fave/least fave Ron moments so now I'll have to dig a little deeper! Hagrid- Favorite: Weeping over Dumbledore's body and having no thought of anger or vengeance toward Snape, just mourning his most beloved friend. Least favorite: When he let Harry & Hermione get punished for sneaking out Norbert. Hagrid should have fessed up and got them off the hook. Arthur - Favorite: Giving Lucius a Muggle beatdown in Flourish & Blotts Least favorite: Isn't one really, Arthur's a good guy. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 23 03:34:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:34:07 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178318 mandorino222: > However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the fact that JKR has definitely > damaged the long-term viability of this series. There are legions of people who are > viscerally disturbed by homosexuality, and I'm afraid that homophobia is not going anywhere > fast. Magpie: Perhaps in the longterm homophobia will have gone somewhere--I'm optimistic! But regardess I don't think those people have much to worry about. If those people read the books the first time and didn't think he was gay when they read it, people will be able to do the same thing in the future. Far smaller legions of people will have heard of the interview, I'm sure. Not that I think this damages the long-term viability much either way. And I think many artists would choose being true to their creation and thoughts over marketing--especially when they're already gazillionaires. Authors with less money have taken far far more risks in that area. mandorino222: While this stunt has certainly worked to her benefit in the short term (i.e. the > megalomaniac who was feeling empty and starved for attention has gotten her name back in > the paper), it will accomplish nothing in the long term but to limit her audience and stifle > exposure of her book to children of future generations. Magpie: Their loss, then, right? Whether JKR is a megalomaniac or not, I don't think the only thing this could possibly accomplish is to limit her audiences. I can't imagine generations from now people primarily associating these books with "OMG, these are the books that have that one character out of a hundred that the author said she thought was gay in an interview!" There are lots of books people don't read for arbitrary reasons. Their loss. She doesn't need the money. And the books aren't so fabulous that people can't do without them. mandorino222: It's a shame she had to rain on the parade of the people who liked > their Dumbledore straight. Magpie: It's a shame she had to rain on the parade of the people who liked their Harry marrying Hermione, or liked their Remus, Tonks or Sirius gay. Why should the straight!Dumbledore crowd (or the "Straight! Everyone crowd, really) get special treatment? Wait, they already get special treatment. Remus, Tonks and Sirius all got given straight stuff in canon. Harry/Hermione got sunk in canon. Dumbledore just got a line in an interview. mandorino222: I pity her and I pity > the countless generations of future children who won't get to read Harry Potter because JKR > needed a headline. Shame on her. Magpie: I pity those kids too, but I wouldn't blame that one on JKR. She's not the one forbidding the kids to read the books because she dislikes gay people. Maybe there are kids forbidden to read the books because there is interracial dating too. Why not feel happy for the gay kids and the kids with gay parents who get some representation? (In an interview at least, not outright in canon.) Actually it's really hard for me to imagine these books as having this problem. They're really conservative. Even this is a made-up controversy. Gay people are invisible in the books. We see people being straight and showing that their orientation is straight all over the place. Straight is great in these books. I think that's going to overcome, years from now, the vague memory that the author said maybe one person in this huge cast of characters was gay once but didn't put it in the books so their kids don't have to see it. That said, this does verify an opinion I've always had about topics like this--you might as well take a firm stand on one side or the other. You'll be less successful trying to have it both ways. -m From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Oct 23 03:45:52 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:45:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178319 In a message dated 10/22/2007 9:20:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, muellem at bc.edu writes: as wiki points out, this term is full of issues and its research methods - hence my TOTAL disregard with wiki's defination. Sometimes being able to look things up quickly isn't the same as actually getting to the real meaning behind the word. Wiki is great, but you have to look at who has been editing this term and look at the discussion behind it. If you don't like Wiki's definition, try this one: _Ephebophilia: Symptom, Cause and Treatment_ (http://www.depression-guide.com/ephebophilia.htm) this is at _www.depression-guide.com_ (http://www.depression-guide.com) . Melissa. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Oct 23 03:51:07 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:51:07 -0700 Subject: Dumbledore a Dirty Ol Man? I don't think so.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471D6FAB.5010501@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178320 Frankly, I don't see a problem with Dumbledore being gay. I found Umbridge's behavior and blatant racism FAR more disturbing then even the thought of old Dumbledore chasing other guys or dropping his soap in the showers. In fact, I'd cheer him on. With all the evil, nasty types in the books, why worry about who a 150 year old wizard dated in his youth? And certainly people can't be so ignorant to think that gay = pedophile = Harry/Dumbledore? Nooo... Dumbledore was so old that he likely didn't even have any interest in a relationship of any kind and certainly would never even think of doing anything with a STUDENT, much less a minor! So what if Dumbledore is gay? Big deal. It changes NOTHING in the books as its not important to the story, its only a footnote. Jazmyn From nawyecka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 04:19:42 2007 From: nawyecka at yahoo.com (Larry) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:19:42 -0000 Subject: DD Gay: Irrelevant Factoid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178321 Dumbledore's sexuality was never hinted at, and I think that is kind of the point. That the main plot arc was about doing the right thing, struggling to do the right thing, and since a persons sexual orientation is not amatter of right and wrong, whether Dumbledore sexually favored men over women is merely another preference of his that we don't need to know. In fact, the point could be made that it was relevant to know that Dumbledore liked Lemon Drops and Cockroach Clusters, but did not have a similar liking for Every Flavor Beans; because Rowling is implying that the reasons underlying someone's candy preferences are more revealing of character than their sexual preferences. After all, Lemon Drops were a Muggle sweet; and Cockroach Clusters while seeming somewhat vile and nasty on the surface, must contain something good deep down, perhaps a message to Harry about Snape. In other words, when the choice is between doing what is right or doing what is easy, sexual orientation yields no clue to predict how a given individual will choose. This sort of goes to the point that a bigot, like other evil types, are never capable of insight into the character of one who chooses to do what is right, no matter how painful or trying the consequences of that choice may be. JMHO Larry From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 04:16:22 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:16:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should JKR shut up? References: Message-ID: <00f601c8152b$783dc430$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178322 >> ***Katie responds: >> Amen, sister. I wish JKR would just stop talking. It seems like > after 10 years of keeping mum, she has a bad case of verbal > diarreah. Everything she says makes me wonder if she even wrote > these books!! (Just kidding, but really!) >> > > > Alla: > I do not understand this at all. It is not like JKR went on the > stage and out of the blue started screaming OMG Dumbledore is gay. > > I mean, I do understand your view that I snipped. Sure, I would > prefer it being in the books as well, but she was ASKED the question > about DD's love life. It is not like she even said she wanted to > give a statement or something. > > What was she supposed to do, say it is a secret or something? > I am one that wishes that JKR would shut up. The interviews after the 7th book have literally come out of Rowling's ass- made up on the spot and without thought. She has inconsistencies, and has contradicted herself several times. Now she's going off the deep end, bringing in a subject that I think deserves a much deeper back story rather than the flippant comment she's giving us now. I can't believe people cheered her announcement! Some have also asked that same question in a different form: What was she supposed to do, lie about it? Um, not saying anything for the sake of prudence or protecting the innocence of the children you are talking to isn't the same as lying. She could have answered without lying or saying it's a secret. Someone asks me if I love my husband- I merely say yes, we've been married a long time, and not describe in detail the wild sex we had last night. She could have just said "yes, he had a lover in his youth", and left it at that. Saying he was gay was going into details that were best left unsaid. She could have also said "Yes, but that is a much deeper story that I might go into in the future." I do agree, there wasn't a point to this announcement. If she wanted to write a story about a gay Dumbledore in his youth, well, that's what books are for- developing those stories in context. The same with the future of the Ron, instead of changing her mind with every interview that she gives. Shelley From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 23 04:39:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:39:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR messed up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471D7AFD.60406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178323 mandorino222 wrote: > series. There are legions of people who are viscerally disturbed by > homosexuality, and I'm afraid that homophobia is not going anywhere > fast. Bart: You realize, of course, that the term "homophobia" is based on the left-wing concept that anybody who does not agree with them politically is mentally ill. As far as Dumbledore being gay, well, I would have said something like, "What the characters do in between chapters is their own business." (not original; I THINK it was Dickens who first used it, but I'm too lazy to look it up). As has been pointed out, there is nothing in canon which is made more clear by Dumbledore being gay, and no indication that he is. Now, I would not be surprised if Professor Sprout and Minnie the Cat are doing something on the side. And if Flitty were gay, JKR would DEFINITELY be accused of stereotyping. New York, for many years, had a mayor named Ed Koch. He pretty much wanted two things: one was to be mayor, and the other was to be governor (his overreaching for the latter ended up having him lose the former, as well). There is a widespread belief that he is a non-practicing gay man; as near as anybody can tell, he's completely chaste (which, by the way, is the correct term for not having sex; celibacy is not getting married). I can see Dumbledore as an Ed Koch type; he gets off so much on power and manipulation that, regardless of who he is attracted to, he doesn't really need sex. Bart From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 04:46:46 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:46:46 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178324 > > Carol responds: > > Dead!DD expresses regret for Snape's death ("Poor > > Severus!"), which results from the flaw in the plan. Montavilla47: I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me how Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die undefeated, so that the wand would lose its power. So, how was Snape getting killed not part of the original plan? Mike: Umm, Am I the only one who thought the title referred to a flaw in *Voldemort's* plan? I thought the whole reason for Harry's exposition on the Elder Wand and the taunting of Riddle was to point out the flaw in Voldemort's plan to become the "master" of the "Death Stick". From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 08:31:38 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:31:38 +0200 Subject: favorite hp-characters Message-ID: <000301c8154f$22e87b00$334677d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178325 My characters: a: animals: - Hedwig: it's a pity she had to die in such way she did: killed in her cage. My favorite moments: all the time she appears, but the most favorite is PoA1, when she brings Hermione's present to Harry. - Crookshanks: I'm fond of cats. Favorite moment, last chapter of PoA, when Ron asked the cat if Pigwidgeon was ok. - Pigwidgeon: favorite because I'm fond of the sound this specie is making. Favorite moments: all times he appears. b: People: - Hermione: although she's dominant, she deals with problems in the same way I prefer: research for information, analyse the problem, find a well-thought solution. Favorite moment: ???HBP9, after Snape's DADA-lesson, when Harry reminded her about what she said in convincing him to give the DA some lessons in defensive spells. Other: the way she dealt with Umbridge. - Remus Lupin: his struggle with lycantropy reminds me of the struggle persons with a handicap are facing. As I'm looking for a job (born blind), I know which difficulties a person with a handicap is facing concerning prejudices, convincing the others of your talents, ... Favorite moment: Lupin's DADA-lessons, private lessons with Harry, the way how he sent off Peeves ??PoA8. Best, Katty From afl0wer4u2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 12:38:13 2007 From: afl0wer4u2 at yahoo.com (afl0wer4u2) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:38:13 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mandorino222" wrote: > > However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the > fact that JKR has definitely damaged the long-term viability of > this series. There are legions of people who are viscerally > disturbed by homosexuality, and I'm afraid that homophobia is not > going anywhere fast. While this stunt has certainly worked to her > benefit in the short term (i.e. the megalomaniac who was feeling > empty and starved for attention has gotten her name back in the > paper), it will accomplish nothing in the long term but to limit > her audience and stifle exposure of her book to children of future > generations. JKR is richer than the queen already, has other books into the plan, she does not NEED a headline... so he's gay. Whooopdee dooooooo. For one it was the press who portayed this news to us... not in video, where we can see it for ourselves how she let this info loose,(not that I have seen) but by their words. If you remember correctly these are some of the same idiots who let loose the ending too early and also pump up bad headlines for their own tactic to increase sales on anything. Now, she says she hopes this helps in teaching tolerance in all areas, racism, homophobia, etc... well the only way that it is going to be overcome is that people be that way instead of teaching it. I am a parent of 3 kids. My oldest knows what being gay is already. He doesn't agree with it but finds no fault of them being a bad person or a lesser person who does not deserve respect (as most people who are most of the time get none and are dissmissed). There have been many famous people who have been gay or rumored to be gay and it has no effect on what we thought of their work. For example... Walt Whitman *U.S. poet, author, 19th c.; Oscar Wilde *Irish author, 19th c.; James Dean *U.S. actor, 20th c; Leonardo Da Vinci* Ital. artist, scientist, 15th c.; etc. Now you wouldn't say we can not go and see his work because he was gay,.... no. What should it be any differnt that DD being gay? There is none. Unless you are a woman who has a crush on the headmaster yourself and felt let down. I do not belive she has messed up or gone too far. She merely stated a fact of his life. She did not overshare either. I believe over time when racism and homophobia is no longer taught, yes I say taught, there will be tolerance. These two things are a learned hate. My family speaks badly of gay peole and I was taught to hate. Either one accepts and keeps the hate taught or opens their eyes to see past skin and sexual preferance. What the shame is that people have to change their minds on GOOD people because of one detail like it was a murder sentence. afl0wer4u2 From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 23 13:41:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:41:00 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178327 Alla: > I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind > you :)). > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and > least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. Pippin: Well, aside from the Potions Master Who Must Not Be Named, it would be Albus Dumbledore, epitome of goodness, Master of the Elder Wand, defeater of Grindelwald and sneaky bastard. My favorite moment? "Blubber, oddment, tweak!" That should remind us all that we don't have to take the person on the podium seriously. Even if they've got a big throne-like chair and more power than we can imagine. :) Least favorite moment? Kicking Fake!Moody over on his back. I knew then that his hat might not be quite as white as his beard. But he did his best and that's what matters, to me anyway. Alla: > But here we go again, I really thought Ron was over his insecurities > by now. Grow up, Ron. I am glad that he did grew up. Pippin: But people don't get over their insecurities. It's one of the things canon teaches us, that people learn to cope, but the basic insecurity is still there, and can ambush them in moments of stress. What the grown up knows is that he *can* cope, because, like Harry conjuring the patronus, he's done it before. At least Ron didn't get invested in his hurt feelings, unlike a certain someone. It does seem, in canon, that you can get over hatred, but if you learn to find pleasure in hating, you're stuck that way. Constant vigilance! Pippin who loves Ron too From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 23 13:54:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:54:07 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: <00f601c8152b$783dc430$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178328 Shelley > Some have also asked that same question in a different form: What was she > supposed to do, lie about it? Um, not saying anything for the sake of > prudence or protecting the innocence of the children you are talking to > isn't the same as lying. She could have answered without lying or saying > it's a secret. Magpie: Protecting the innocence of children from what? She's got straight characters throughout the books being straight. Why would one need "protection" from knowing that Dumbledore is one more character who was motivated by romantic love or attraction at some point in the story? They can hear that Merope Gaunt was so attracted to Tom Riddle she gave him a love potion and then after he married her and got her pregant she stopped and he left her but they need to be protected from Dumbledore being attracted to Grindenwald but defeating him because he was evil? Seems to me the Merope story is a lot more sordid. There's all sorts of scenes in canon where we and Harry see people expressing physical attraction to people or being in love with people. Shelley: > > Someone asks me if I love my husband- I merely say yes, we've been married a > long time, and not describe in detail the wild sex we had last night. She > could have just said "yes, he had a lover in his youth", and left it at > that. Saying he was gay was going into details that were best left unsaid. > She could have also said "Yes, but that is a much deeper story that I might > go into in the future." Magpie: Wait--how are those details in any way the same? Rowling *did* give the answer you give about your husband. She said, "Yes, I think he was in love with Grindenwald." I don't see where there's any more details in her answer than your answer. You both agreed that you loved someone and said who it was. It's not more sexually explicit because Grindenwald is a man. Bart: You realize, of course, that the term "homophobia" is based on the left-wing concept that anybody who does not agree with them politically is mentally ill. Magpie: I've never associated the term "homophobia" with mental illness-- despite the word phobia. I always took the point was that there was a fear of that sexual orientation and people that had it. And while it's probably not always accurate to say that, I can see why it would seem to describe what the experience felt like to a lot of gay people (who were literally called mentally ill as well). Even above, with words like "protect the innocence of children" sort of indicate there's a danger in hearing about a man attracted to another man that isn't there with a man being attracted to a woman. That said, the word was obviously made up to indicate this is a bad thing, yes. I guess the opposite would maybe be something like the use of the word "morals" or "values" to describe being anti-gay rights, which one could say is based on the concept that anybody who does not agree with one politically is being immoral or without values, rather than having different ones. Bart: As has been pointed out, there is nothing in canon which is made more clear by Dumbledore being gay, and no indication that he is. Magpie: There is stuff in canon that is made more clear in knowing he was in love with Grindenwald. It's true there is no indication that he's gay--which is why nothing in canon is made more clear by it. We've got lots of scenes and moments that turn on straight attraction. There's nothing especially illuminating about Myrtle's attraction to various boys, or Hephzibah Smith's attraction to Tom Riddle, or Ron's towards Hermione or Teddy's to Victoire's. These are just part of things that JKR put in the story. If Dumbledore's love for Grindenwald had been included it would have made that clear in the same way. Just as any scene where a person of one gender was shown being romantically interested or physically attracted to or in a relationship with someone of the same gender would work just like any of the scenes with straight people do. The analogy was made to Dumbledore liking lemon drops and that JKR is saying that one's sexual orientation doesn't affect one's ability to do the right thing any more than liking lemon drops. Except she's only canonically showing that with lemon drops, since she left out Dumbledore's liking Grindenwald, so by default he reads as straight. And of course, nobody objects to being told Dumbledore likes lemon drops because it doesn't directly advance the plot. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 13:59:02 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:59:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. References: Message-ID: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178329 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mandorino222" > wrote: >> >> However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the >> fact that JKR has definitely damaged the long-term viability of >> this series. There are legions of people who are viscerally >> disturbed by homosexuality, and I'm afraid that homophobia is not >> going anywhere fast. While this stunt has certainly worked to her >> benefit in the short term (i.e. the megalomaniac who was feeling >> empty and starved for attention has gotten her name back in the >> paper), it will accomplish nothing in the long term but to limit >> her audience and stifle exposure of her book to children of future >> generations. > > > JKR is richer than the queen already, has other books into the > plan, she does not NEED a headline... so he's gay. Whooopdee dooooooo. For > one it was the press who portayed this news to us... not in video, where > we can see it for ourselves how she let this info loose,(not that I have > seen) but by their words. If you remember correctly these are some of the > same idiots who let loose the ending too early and also pump up bad > headlines for their own tactic to increase sales on anything. > > Now, she says she hopes this helps in teaching tolerance in all > areas, racism, homophobia, etc... well the only way that it is going > to be overcome is that people be that way instead of teaching it. I > am a parent of 3 kids. My oldest knows what being gay is already. He > doesn't agree with it but finds no fault of them being a bad person or a > lesser person who does not deserve respect (as most people who are most of > the time get none and are dissmissed). > > There have been many famous people who have been gay or rumored > to be gay and it has no effect on what we thought of their work. For > example... Walt Whitman *U.S. poet, author, 19th c.; Oscar Wilde > *Irish author, 19th c.; James Dean *U.S. actor, 20th c; Leonardo Da > Vinci* Ital. artist, scientist, 15th c.; etc. Now you wouldn't say we > can not go and see his work because he was gay,.... no. What should > it be any differnt that DD being gay? There is none. Snipping just so the last line is the one I want to address. When you read Walt Whitman's poetry though, it's not about homosexuality. Thus, people of all sexual types can appreciate it. When you see an actor play a role, as well, if the role is not about anything gay, people of all sexual types can appreciate the movie. Something changes though when the artwork itself is openly gay oriented, or the movie is gay based. And thus enters the subject of Dumbledore. Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not about anyone's sexuality. By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this work about sexuality, and that does change things. When you read the work, it's the gayness that comes through in the writing- of course, gay people can write works that everyone can appreciate, but when you have gay characters in your written works, the medium itself becomes a gay promotion or political statement about homosexuality. Had she wrote the series promoting homosexuality, the same way that she brought to light the racial hatred (Mudbloods, Purebloods), the series would have been very different indeed, and many people would not have continued reading the series, or supporting the fandom. It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a very common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you like to read about. I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so that would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I would not have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read them to my children had this series been about gays. That's just not something that I even find to be remotely enjoyable. Shelley From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 14:07:32 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:07:32 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178330 > > > > Carol said: > > > Dead!DD expresses regret for Snape's death ("Poor > > > Severus!"), which results from the flaw in the plan. > > > To which Montavilla47 replied: > I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me > how Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? > > As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die > undefeated, so that the wand would lose its power. > > > > So, how was Snape getting killed not part of > the original plan? > > > Then Mike: > Umm, Am I the only one who thought the title referred to a flaw in > *Voldemort's* plan? > > I thought the whole reason for Harry's exposition on the Elder Wand > and the taunting of Riddle was to point out the flaw in Voldemort's > plan to become the "master" of the "Death Stick". Now va32h: I think we are talking about two different things. The chapter title The Flaw in the Plan probably refers to a few things. Certainly to Voldemort's use of Harry's blood in his regeneration potion and perhaps also to Voldemort's failure to understand the power of sacrifice. The phrase hearkens back to OoTP when Dumbledore tells Harry that Dumbledore's own affection for Harry was a "the flaw in the plan" in regards to using Harry to fulfill the prophecy. So I'm wagering that the "flaw" referred to in the chapter relates to the power of love (whether it's Lily's love for Harry or Harry's love for everyone). The issue with Snape is entirely separate, IMO. Dumbledore does express regret that Snape died and I think that regret in genuine. I am not sure that Snape's death was a part of Dumbledore's plan. Dumledore is known for parceling out information on a need to know basis, yes? He wanted to control his own death. Whatever Dumbledore had in mind for his death, it probably wasn't to be knocked off the Astronomy tower on that particular night. It is perfectly plausible to me that Dumbledore intended to tell Snape - "Kill me, but make sure that after you do, you take my wand and (burn it, throw it in the lake, snap it in two) or otherwise render it useless. In regards to the Elder Wand situation, the flaw in the plan would again be "love". Draco's hesitance to kill - that Draco used Expelliarmus instead of Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore - is what made Draco the Master of the Elder Wand. Had Draco gone for the kill at once, the Elder Wand would have worked to protect Dumbledore and Draco would not have become its master. So Draco's mercy is another little hiccup for Voldemort (although alas this hiccup ended up affecting Snape too). I suppose in the Big Picture, the flaw in any plan is the unpredictable nature of the human heart. va32h From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 14:14:10 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:14:10 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178331 > Shelley wrote: > > Some have also asked that same question in a different form: What > was she > > supposed to do, lie about it? Um, not saying anything for the sake > of > > prudence or protecting the innocence of the children you are > talking to > > isn't the same as lying. She could have answered without lying or > saying > > it's a secret. va32h: If we are really determined to protect the "innocence of children" they probably shouldn't be reading HP at all. It's full of murder, torture, frightening imagery and all manner of violence. I found the graveyard scene in GoF and the cave scene in HBP quite frightening as an adult - I'm sure those scenes gave plenty of children nightmares. But that's our sensibility isn't it - any amount of violence is acceptable, any drop of sexuality offensive. Some movie director said once - you can show a breast being sliced off and get an "R" rating, but if you show a breast being caressed it's an "X". Or as Daniel Radcliffe said of his performance in Equus - parents hesitated to bring their children to the play because he is naked in one brief scene, but they had no problem with the fact that his character brutally mutilates six horses! We really need to rethink our priorities. va32h From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 23 14:35:25 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:35:25 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178332 > va32h wrote: > In regards to the Elder Wand situation, the flaw in the plan would > again be "love". Draco's hesitance to kill - that Draco used > Expelliarmus instead of Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore - is what made > Draco the Master of the Elder Wand. Had Draco gone for the kill at > once, the Elder Wand would have worked to protect Dumbledore and Draco > would not have become its master. So Draco's mercy is another little > hiccup for Voldemort (although alas this hiccup ended up affecting > Snape too). Potioncat: I like all the 'Flaw in the Plan' moments that you brought up in this post. My question is for anyone who has thought out, discusses or generally has an opinion about the topic. I know the Elder Wand and wand lore has been discussed---I didn't get to read many of those posts immediately post-DH. So, does anyone have a good idea on what Snape's role was supposed to have been concerning the Elder Wand? Did he know anything about it at all? Did DD expect the Wand to play a role in Harry's final moment with LV? I'd be interested in comments or links to previous posts. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 23 14:38:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:38:59 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178333 -> > Montavilla47: > I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me > how Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? > > As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die > undefeated, so that the wand would lose its power. > > > > So, how was Snape getting killed not part of > the original plan? Pippin: We don't know what Dumbledore's original plan was, but we know he wanted Snape to live, both to protect Hogwarts and to pass the information about the soul fragment to Harry. It was by no means inevitable that Voldemort would decide that the elder wand had to pass by murder. In fact, he should have known by the very fact that Dumbledore became master of the wand while Grindelwald was still alive that mastery of the wand did not have to pass by murder at all. But while Voldemort was capable of logic, in this case he gave into his murderous urges and didn't think of that. Pippin From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 14:42:06 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <445840.90570.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178334 Alla: > I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind > you :)). > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and > least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. ***Katie: My favorite character (at the moment) is Neville. My favorite moment for Neville is his entire story arc in DH. He really came into his own and became the wizard, and the human being, we always knew he was. My favorite specific moment from that arc is when he pulls Gryffindor's sword from the Sorting Hat. Even though we don't hear inside Neville's head the way we do inside Harry's, I feel like at that moment, all of his doubts about himself must have washed away. He was brave and good and strong and powerful, and he just makes me cry every time I read that scene. My least favorite Neville moment would have to be when he runs into the Trio at St. Mungo's and he is yelled at by his grandmother about being proud of his parents. I just felt so awful for him at that moment. He must have been heartbroken, embarrassed...just every yucky feeling. I felt sooo bad for him. Fun game. I may come up with another favorite... 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 sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 23 14:42:30 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:42:30 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178335 Shelley: > Snipping just so the last line is the one I want to address. When you read > Walt Whitman's poetry though, it's not about homosexuality. Thus, people of > all sexual types can appreciate it. Magpie: Why can't a straight person appreciate something that's about about non-straight people the same way a gay person can appreciate something about straight people? If Cole Porter was writing about men in his love songs, and I know that, how does that make the song suddenly less meaningful to straight people? Sure if someone is writing about being gay their writing about an experience different from the experience of straight people, but that doesn't shut straight people out--unless it's by their own attitude of entitlement, something that goes along with being in the dominant group. Shelley: When you see an actor play a role, as > well, if the role is not about anything gay, people of all sexual types can > appreciate the movie. Magpie: Why is this different for gay people than for straight people? If "all types" can appreciate the movie as long as it's not about "anything gay" (iow, if it's about straight people) why can't "all types" appreciate a movie that's about gay people? Yeah, this is the way things work--minorities have to identify with people outside their minority because they're not represented. But if they can do it obviously it can be done. I have no trouble appreciating movies or books with gay characters at all, so I know it can be done that way too. For years it was illegal to even show gay people in any movie. Shelley: Something changes though when the artwork itself is > openly gay oriented, or the movie is gay based. And thus enters the subject > of Dumbledore. Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not about > anyone's sexuality. Magpie: Not about anyone's sexuality? It's very often about lots of characters' sexuality, including Harry's. There's plenty of straight sexuality on display in it. It's not not sexuality because it's straight. I'm amazed anybody could read HBP especially (but it's not just HBP by far) and say this isn't about sexuality--how many romantic storylines did we hear about in that book alone? Why do Wizards make love potions again? What's that chest monster supposed to be? Shelley: By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this work > about sexuality, and that does change things. When you read the work, it's > the gayness that comes through in the writing- of course, gay people can > write works that everyone can appreciate, but when you have gay characters > in your written works, the medium itself becomes a gay promotion or > political statement about homosexuality. Magpie: Oh well. I mean seriously--so what? JKR includes couples of different races in her book too. So I guess that's a promotion and political statement about non-white people--it says: they exist! It hardly makes the series "about" being any one non-white race any more than Dumbledore being gay makes Harry "about gay promotion." Dumbledore still has the same priorities, which are Harry and defeating Voldemort. If there's a political statement in there isn't it already in there--or at least, wasn't it intended to be since JKR claims she's writing a long plea for tolerance? Did she mean tolerance for werewolves but not real people? Shelley: Had she wrote the series promoting > homosexuality, the same way that she brought to light the racial hatred > (Mudbloods, Purebloods), the series would have been very different indeed, > and many people would not have continued reading the series, or supporting > the fandom. It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a very > common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you like to > read about. Magpie: Pureblood/Mudblood is a fictional construct so can probably stand for any discrimination one wants it to stand for. (And just as an aside, maybe there are a lot of people who wouldn't have continued in fandom if there were a gay character, but a whole lot of fandom would have mightily cheered, so I don't see how that's any more of a big deal than having Harry get with Ginny instead of Hermione. Nothing she does pleases all of fandom.) Treading carefully here, but you're not saying "I don't want to see a movie that's all about gay political issues," you're saying youy don't want to see anything with gay characters in it and giving the reason that that makes it about certain issues, a reason I don't think is true. It seems more like it's the gay character that's the problem, since that's all we know about at this point. Whether or not you feel it's about hate, it sounds like something a bit more hostile than just not being interested in certain topics. If somebody stopped watching The Simpsons when they realized the show had gay characters, I'd have a hard time thinking they gave up the show because it became centered on exclusively gay issues since...it isn't. Shelley: I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so that > would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I would not > have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read them to my > children had this series been about gays. That's just not something that I > even find to be remotely enjoyable. Magpie: Okay, first, I'm not sure what you mean about "gay lifestyles." This particular gay man's "lifestyle" included learning advanced magic, fighting evil, being headmaster of a school and liking candy. You already know Dumbledore's "lifestyle" and it wouldn't change if we knew he was in love with Grindenwald or that his sexual orientation was gay. If you want to put down any book that has a gay character in it, that's certainly your choice, but the overall story of HP would not change if one of the many people Harry came across showed physical attraction for their own gender rather than the opposite one, or if we knew that Dumbledore was in love with Grindenwald. I'm not sure what you are implying about how it would change to become about "gays" or "gay lifestyles." JKR seems to think Dumbledore could be gay just the way you already knew and liked him, that he is gay just the way he and the books just the way they are. -m From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Oct 23 14:47:21 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:47:21 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. References: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <006801c81583$9ecd8fb0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178336 k12listmomma wrote: > Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not > about > anyone's sexuality. By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this > work > about sexuality, and that does change things. Miles: No, the work is not about sexuality because one of the characters is gay, and thus it does not change things. Being gay is nothing more sexual than being straight. We have sexually driven behaviour all over the books, we have pregnancies and children everywhere. So, why does a gay Dumbledore, whom we did not see doing anything driven by his sexuality, make the books "about sexuality"? Without offence to anybody, but could it be that most of this discussion here on the list is a very US-American one? I talked with some people about this "news" here in Germany, and most just said "aha, is it important?" There are intolerant people around here as well, but this intolerance is not really important in political or cultural issues. Christian (or islamic) fundamentalists are a small minority here, so few people will mind what they think or what books they wouldn't read. To repeat a question I asked before, what good is a message of tolerance that excludes certain groups for tactical reasons? Miles From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 23 14:47:52 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:47:52 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall (was Re: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178337 > Potioncat: > I'll say Minerva McGonagall. Her best moment was any one with > Umbridge...or was it "Tripe, Sybil?" or no, it was when she told > Neville he just lacked confidence. > > Her worst was when she didn't protest Harry's Cruciatus. Potioncat: Now that I've started thinking about someone other than Snape, I wonder, what was Professor McGonagall doing at Privet Drive all those years ago? She wasn't ESE! She wasn't there by instructions. Hagrid's left the castle; Snape can't be roused from his dungeon quarters; the Headmaster is off on one of his little jaunts; and she takes herself away from the castle to sit on a wall all day. She may have been an Order Member. Do we know? But that wouldn't explain what she's doing. Odd that the Deputy Headmistress would leave Hogwarts with such strange goings on going on. Of course, she may not have been the Deputy then. I have an idea, and it will play into her actions in the later books. Does anyone else have any thoughts? ...about this, I mean. I know you all have very many thoughts. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 15:00:54 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:00:54 -0000 Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178338 > > lizzyben: > > However DD eventually defeated GG, I don't think it involved a duel. Panhandle: > Draco managed it with a simple Expelliarmus. I can't help but think that > Dumbledore couldn't figure something out. lizzyben: I'm sure DD figured something out & I'd bet it has to do with a sneaky plan rather than a full-out duel. allthecoolnamesgone: It is a very interesting suggestion that there was in fact, no duel. If that is the case then it becomes in some ways an earlier version of Harry's walk into the Forest to confront Voldemort. Did Dumbledore go to Gellert and just say 'This has to stop and I am here to stop you. You have the Elder Wand so a duel will result in my death. Is that what you want?' It does strike me as a very Dumbledorean scene and would fit in with his idea that love and the sacrifice it often entails, is in the end the only way to defeat evil. The rest of the WW without the knowledge that Gellert loved/had loved Dumbledore would have assumed that he had defeated him by Power and skill alone. lizzyben: Yes, that's one scenario & it would help support DD's faith in the power of love. I could imagine GG actually breaking down & giving up, or finally feeling remorse at that moment. Less idealistically, I could also see Doubleagent!DD initially posing as a supporter or just an old friend to arrange a meeting w/GG, then capturing GG instead. allthecoolnamesgone: This would also add a reason to Dumbledore's refusal to accept the post of Minister for Magic. It was offered by those who wanted the powerful vanquisher of Grindlewald in charge, when Dumbledore knew that he had not defeated him by use of 'power' at all. lizzyben: It would also add to DD's inner insecurity - here he is, revered as the defeater of GG, & only he knows that he was actually in love w/GG, collaborated w/GG, waited 50 years to fight him for personal reasons, and then didn't actually defeat him in a duel at all. He would feel like a fraud, IMO he did feel like a fraud in some ways. DD knew his own real character & knew that he was not the figure of "goodness & light" that the wizarding world believed - I think this is part of the reason that he was so impressed with Harry, who actually was the noble vanquisher of Dark Wizards that DD pretended to be. k12listmomma: > Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not > about > anyone's sexuality. By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this > work > about sexuality, and that does change things. lizzyben: I really don't understand how that's the case, anymore than having Snape in love w/Lily, or Harry marry Ginny, makes the work about sexuality. The DD revelation might've been too little, too late & DD might not be a great role model for a gay character, but I'm still glad that JKR revealed this information. It should've been in the books, but this is better than nothing. And judging by the backlash it's inspired, this is still highly controversial. Other YA series have homosexual characters, so I don't see why Harry Potter should be any different. It's one area in which I feel JKR is living up to her claim of promoting "tolerance". From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 15:12:20 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:12:20 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall (was Re: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Now that I've started thinking about someone other than Snape, I > wonder, what was Professor McGonagall doing at Privet Drive all those > years ago? She wasn't ESE! She wasn't there by instructions. Hagrid's > left the castle; Snape can't be roused from his dungeon quarters; the > Headmaster is off on one of his little jaunts; and she takes herself > away from the castle to sit on a wall all day. She may have been an > Order Member. Do we know? But that wouldn't explain what she's doing. > Odd that the Deputy Headmistress would leave Hogwarts with such > strange goings on going on. Of course, she may not have been the > Deputy then. > > I have an idea, and it will play into her actions in the later books. > Does anyone else have any thoughts? > > ...about this, I mean. I know you all have very many thoughts. > va32h: Well she definitely doesn't know why Dumbledore is there - she expresses surprise at pretty much everything Dumbledore says. She doesn't know who the Dursleys are, that baby Harry is coming to them or that Hagrid is bringing him. Or even that James and Lily are really dead and Voldemort really gone. Dumbledore seems amused to see Minerva, but not shocked or dismayed. So here's what I think: Minerva hears these rumors, goes up to Dumbledore's office to ask for the scoop - DD is his usual cryptic self and disappears. Minerva sees the Dursleys address scrawled on a piece of parchment on DD's desk (or overhears him telling *someone* to meet him there) and thinks "right, I'm going to wait for him there and demand some answers!) I don't think she was in the Order (she's not in the photo that Moody shows Harry in OoTP is she?) and she may or may not have been Deputy Headmistress at the time. It wouldn't necessarily have been OOC for her to leave the school even if she were...she is ready to fight for Dumbledore and risk her position until DD reminds her that Hogwarts needs her more than he does. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 16:33:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:33:02 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178340 Montavilla47 wrote: > > I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me how Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? > > > > As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die undefeated, so that the wand would lose its power. > > > > > > > > So, how was Snape getting killed not part of the original plan? > Pippin responded: > > We don't know what Dumbledore's original plan was, but we know he wanted Snape to live, both to protect Hogwarts and to pass the information about the soul fragment to Harry. > > It was by no means inevitable that Voldemort would decide that the elder wand had to pass by murder. In fact, he should have known by the very fact that Dumbledore became master of the wand while Grindelwald was still alive that mastery of the wand did not have to pass by murder at all. But while Voldemort was capable of logic, in this case he gave into his murderous urges and didn't think of that. Carol responds: Exactly. I've responded to this point in various posts, but the main point is simply that Snape had to be alive to pass on the message to Harry after seeing Nagini magically protected. Ergo, Nagini's magical protection, which related to LV's discovery that Harry was finding and perhaps destroying his Horcruxes, should not have been an automatic death sentence for Snape. (DD, not being omniscient, could not possibly have anticipated that Snape would be bitten by Nagini in Harry's presence and that he would give Harry his memories as his final act. And if Snape had been AK'd, he could not have given him his memories, and, especially, that critical message about the soul bit, at all.) I take Dumbledore's regret that Snape died (it is not remorse; there's no indication that he planned Snape's death as a sacrifice) to be genuine. (If it isn't, he's a foul and contemptible hypocrite and that certainly isn't the impression that Harry receives). Moreover, when Harry asks whether DD intended for Snape to end up with the Elder Wand, DD says, I admit that was my intention, but it did not work out as I intended, did it?" to which Harry responds, "No, that bit didn't work out" (DH Am. ed. 721). Ergo, Snape's death was not part of the plan. It came about because of the flaw in the plan, Draco's Expelliarmus (which ultimately works to Harry's advantage, but, unfortunately, not to Snape's). Exactly what DD *did* anticipate is not clear, but it seems that in HBP (both at Hogsmeade before he sees the Dark Mark and on the tower), he wanted Snape to kill him, with only Harry present. (He starts to send Harry in his Invisibility Cloak to find Snape, tell him what happened, and speak to no one else. The reader thinks that he wants Snape to cure him, or at least, that's what I thought, but "The Prince's Tale" makes it clear that he had no such intention.) Once Draco appears and disarms DD, part of the plan literally flies out the window, but DD still needs Snape to kill him for the reasons he had stated to Snape in "The Prince's Tale" (and because of the UV) and he still needs Snape alive to become headmaster and protect the students and to help Harry secretly, especially by delivering the message that will lead to Harry's self-sacrifice. In any case, while DD expected LV to find out about the Elder Wand and go looking for it, he didn't necessarily expect him to *find* it. Nor would he have done so had it not been for two incidents that DD could not have anticipated: the backfiring wand in "Seven Potters" that sends LV searching for the wand (after torturing Ollivander) and Harry's dropping the photograph of Gellert Grindelwald at Bathilda's house, enabling LV to discover the identity of the merry-faced thief, whose whereabouts he still has to determine. And then, once LV has found Grindelwald and stolen the wand from DD's grave, he still has to discover that the wand doesn't work properly for him (odd that he would even think that, considering how effectively he uses it to kill people and conjure Nagini's protective bubble) and arrive at the conclusion that Snape is the wand's master *before* Snape sees Nagini in her bubble. There was some risk to Snape, but his death was by no means inevitable, and had he been killed without imparting that key message to Harry, DD's plan would have failed altogether. I think that Pippin must be right--DD intended for Snape to destroy the wand or hide it so that LV could never get it. (Snape could use Occlumency and cunning to protect himself from detection.) It's even possible that DD wanted Snape to kill LV if Harry failed though, admittedly, there's no direct evidence to support that particular speculation. Certainly, DD didn't want the wand buried with him where LV could obtain it by grave robbery. Potioncat askded for links to earlier posts on the subject. Here are two of mine: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177716 (scroll to the last section; it's a long post) and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174484 Carol, certain only that Snape's death was not part of DD's plan, as indicated by his words and attitude in "King's Cross" and the necessity for Snape to be alive to deliver his message to Harry which has a slightly different take on what DD's plan might have been. From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 23 14:29:02 2007 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (becks3uk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:29:02 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178341 >--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a very > common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you like to > read about. I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so that > would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I would not > have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read them to my > children had this series been about gays. That's just not something that I > even find to be remotely enjoyable. > > I am a long time lurker who just felt compelled to write as I am shocked by the attitudes some people have had towards what I pretty much felt was non-news. It doesn't matter to me what JKR's motivations were for revealing this as it changes nothing for me. I don't think there was much point in her revealing it but nonethless I see no reason why people should react to it. I am surprised at the complete contradiction in your statement Shelley. You said that you would not have read the books because you do not find books about gay lifestyles enjoyable but clearly you did find the books enjoyable or you wouldn't be a member of this group. The fact is, I understand that you might not want to read a book about gay lifestyles but this book isn't about gay lifestyles, the fact that it was such a revelation is because we did not see anything 'gay' about DD's lifestyle. He just happened to be gay but the character, that you used to enjoy reading, is the same. Becks From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 17:17:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:17:24 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178342 Magpie wrote: > Not about anyone's sexuality? It's very often about lots of > characters' sexuality, including Harry's. There's plenty of straight > sexuality on display in it. It's not not sexuality because it's > straight. I'm amazed anybody could read HBP especially (but it's not > just HBP by far) and say this isn't about sexuality--how many > romantic storylines did we hear about in that book alone? Why do > Wizards make love potions again? What's that chest monster supposed > to be? Carol responds: It seems to me that sexuality is a secondary motif that fits in with adolescence. It's a source of internal conflict for Harry and external conflict for Ron and Hermione, as well as a normal part of growing up, along with anger, jealousy, competition, bullying, the pressure of examinations, and acne. (At least one of our main characters should have had to deal with having a pimple on the tip of his or her nose at a crucial moment!) Since JKR wants Harry to end up happily married with the family he never had as a child, he is per force heterosexual. The same is true for Ron and Hermione, whom she intends to end up together (their bickering is almost certainly prompted to some degree by unresolved sexual tension, unrecognized by Ron, at least, until HBP). The books are not *about* sexuality. They're about Harry. In HBP and to some extent DH, his growing attraction to a fellow student (part of the normal adolescence being experienced by other students his age) conflicts with his unique role as the Chosen One. He has to relinquish his relationship with Ginny to destroy Horcruxes. So sexuality plays two roles, marking Harry as an Everykid that teenage readers can identify with and setting up a conflict (several conflicts, actually, including the supposed choice between Ginny and Ron which reflects Harry's rather dim understanding of his best friend's psychology) in Harry's life. Harry and his friends are heterosexual; therefore, the sexuality depicted (which, perhaps out of consideration for her young audience and perhaps because she's concentrating on Harry/LV and doesn't want normal life to conflict with it) is heterosexual. I do think that JKR has limited the sexuality to "snogging" because very young readers are turned off even by kissing but also because she doesn't want to encourage teenage pregnancy or premarital sex. (Even Tom Riddle's parents were married.) Presumably, she has similar reservations about sex between teenage boys being depicted in books, either because her young readers might find it disturbing or because their parents might. At any rate, these are not books about the RW and RW problems and conflicts distract from the mythical elements, the David-and-Goliath confrontation that the books are leading up to and the themes of agape love and self-sacrifice and atonement and forgiveness and redemption and death that are, IMO, much more central than sexuality of any kind to these books. Also, of course, love, especially unrequited love, and sex don't necessarily go together in these books. The only sex that we know occurs does so off-page between married couples, and we only know that it happens because those couples produce children (although Arthur's pet name for Molly, Mollywobbles, suggests moments of tender intimacy that Harry finds embarrassing). Maybe it's a conservative approach (and I, for one, see nothing wrong with that), but my feeling is that the books are written on two levels, one that a child can understand (for example, most children won't think of pedophilia when they read Rita's insinuations about the "unhealthy" relationship between Harry and DD or rape in connection with what the Centaurs did to Umbridge), and one that an adult reader can deduce through subtext. We don't *know* what happened to Umbridge because it happened offpage, but readers of all ages are left to imagine that punishment for themselves, or just not think about it if they so choose. There are also sexual innuendoes that go over a child's head; cf. JKR's answer to the eight-year-old who asked about Aberforth's goats. I for one don't want any eight-year-olds or ten-year-olds of my acquaintance to be disturbed by such things. The violence and mindless bigotry (Muggle-borns "stealing" magic) are sufficiently disturbing. (BTW, I don't see how the DH film is going to manage a PG-13 rating, but, of course, that's a topic for another forum.) Carol, who thinks that JKR has sidetracked us from the real themes of the book with her imagined view of Dumbledore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 17:34:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:34:10 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178343 --- "mandorino222" wrote: > > However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the fact > that JKR has definitely damaged the long-term viability of this > series. ... bboyminn: I'm going to have to agree with the others, Dumbledore being gay is merely an interesting 'outside the story' background tidbit. It has nothing to do with the story at all. As I said, we don't see Dumbledore flouncing around and camping it up. Dumbledore being gay has no more to do with this series than Walt Whitman being gay has to do with poetry, or Da Vinci being gay has anything to do with artwork, or Hans Christian Anderson being gay has to do with fairy tales. It is an interesting and curious bit of information, but not really relevant to the art or story itself. If there is anyone in the story that is clearly gay (Slash fiction aside) it is Professor Grubbly-Plank. I means everything about her just screams 'dyke'. Yet, despite her presence and presentation in the story, no one cares because the story is not about her. She is nothing more than some colorful background scenery. Once again, I want to point out exactly what JKR said. "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." I don't see that as flat out saying that Dumbledore is gay. It is more like she is speaking of a person she met or someone she knows. She is not saying I creates him this way, she is saying this is just a side bit of preception that has nothing to do with the Dumbledore we see in daily life (meaning, in the story). I might say of someone I work with or know that 'I always thought of /him/ as gay', but that is irrelevant and immaterial to our working or personal relationship. It's just my perception. As I said before, characters take on a life and personality of their own. An author doesn't so much invent them as discover them, and merely chronicle that discovery. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 17:40:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:40:53 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in the books WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178344 > Carol responds: > > It seems to me that sexuality is a secondary motif that fits in with > adolescence. Alla: Agree, but see below. Carol: > I do think that JKR has limited the sexuality to "snogging" because > very young readers are turned off even by kissing but also because she > doesn't want to encourage teenage pregnancy or premarital sex. (Even > Tom Riddle's parents were married.) Presumably, she has similar > reservations about sex between teenage boys being depicted in books, > either because her young readers might find it disturbing or because > their parents might. Alla: Well, yeah, I do not want sex scenes in the books either, I have my imagination and fanfic for that. Any sex scenes, between gays or straight couples. But what I do want is precisely what you said - just as JKR showed us kissing between heterosexual couples, I would **love** her showing casually once or twice two boys or girls kissing in the background. That is ALL. I think that would have done wonders to treat sexuality as non-issue, as Magpie said somewhere. Just as race is treated as non-issue too. Now to go back for Dumbledore for a second, I have absolutely no problem with mentioning of sexuality, being well not mentioned. Because NONE of the teachers sexuality is mentioned and I have no problem with them wanting to keep it private from their students. After all, Minerva does not go around saying " Oh, oh I am straight or lesbian either" and she does not tell students stories from her love life. NONE of the teachers does, so as I said, I have zero problem with Dumbledore's sexuality not mentioned, not that I mind if she would have mentioned it, but it makes a great deal of sense to me story line wise. BUT it makes no sense for me that she did not just casually mentioned two boys or girls kissing, just that **kissing**. Not that I can judge her as I mentioned before. JMO, Alla From kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 18:31:04 2007 From: kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com (dkewpie) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. Message-ID: <184194.36239.qm@web80513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178345 ----- Original Message ---- From: becks3uk To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:29:02 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. >--- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a very > common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you like to > read about. I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so that > would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I would not > have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read them to my > children had this series been about gays. That's just not something that I > even find to be remotely enjoyable. > > J: May be I ask where are all these "gay lifestyles" that you're-so-not-care-for in the seven HP books are? Please give me specific pages, quotes...etc. I really didn't know how I have miss them. Since when did the series become about gays? Where? Please point me to the exact pages and quotes. Thanks. Didn't you read and enjoy all seven HP books prior knowing DD's sexuality just fine? Since you oh-so-not-care for gays, yet you DID finish all 7 books, so logcially that means you didn't notice the "gayness" before right? And now that you heard about this little extra info of DD that's unrelated to the plot (hence not mention in the book), did the text of you books magically turn into themselves into "gay words or paragraphes and paragraphs about gay lifestyle"? Wow really, how does that work? Can my books turn into gayness like yours too? Helps are welcome, thanks. J [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 18:32:42 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:32:42 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178346 bboyminn: I'm going to have to agree with the others, Dumbledore being gay is merely an interesting 'outside the story' background tidbit. It has nothing to do with the story at all. As I said, we don't see Dumbledore flouncing around and camping it up. Dumbledore being gay has no more to do with this series than Walt Whitman being gay has to do with poetry, or Da Vinci being gay has anything to do with artwork, or Hans Christian Anderson being gay has to do with fairy tales. It is an interesting and curious bit of information, but not really relevant to the art or story itself. Tiffany: I had my suspicions about DD's love interests for a long time because I've got some real good GLBT friends in college. However, it was a nice tidbit to learn about, but really wasn't anything that'd interfere with theme & element development, even if it was revealed in the canonical novels themselves. Even if it's true in the novels that DD had some gay desires, it's at best a nice footnote. It's hardly anything that'd be enough to disrupt the overall themes & elements of the novels themselves. Just because a character is gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a work of literature isn't enough to be a death blow to it, same with the author. The finished prduct should be so good that it speaks for itself, independent of outside factors that're minor issues in respect to what was accompished. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 19:07:22 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:07:22 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178347 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Montavilla47 wrote: > > > I know this is off-topic, but can someone please explain to me how > Severus's death was a flaw in the plan? > > > > > > As I understand it, the plan was for Dumbledore to die undefeated, > so that the wand would lose its power. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, how was Snape getting killed not part of the original plan? > > > Pippin responded: > > > > We don't know what Dumbledore's original plan was, but we know he > wanted Snape to live, both to protect Hogwarts and to pass the > information about the soul fragment to Harry. > > > > It was by no means inevitable that Voldemort would decide that the > elder wand had to pass by murder. In fact, he should have known by the > very fact that Dumbledore became master of the wand while Grindelwald > was still alive that mastery of the wand did not have to pass by > murder at all. But while Voldemort was capable of logic, in this case > he gave into his murderous urges and didn't think of that. > > Carol responds: > I take Dumbledore's regret that Snape died (it is not remorse; there's > no indication that he planned Snape's death as a sacrifice) to be > genuine. (If it isn't, he's a foul and contemptible hypocrite and that > certainly isn't the impression that Harry receives). Moreover, when > Harry asks whether DD intended for Snape to end up with the Elder > Wand, DD says, I admit that was my intention, but it did not work out > as I intended, did it?" to which Harry responds, "No, that bit didn't > work out" (DH Am. ed. 721). Ergo, Snape's death was not part of the > plan. It came about because of the flaw in the plan, Draco's > Expelliarmus (which ultimately works to Harry's advantage, but, > unfortunately, not to Snape's). Montavilla47: First off, thank you Carol and Pippin, for responding to my question. It's possible that my annoyance about Snape's death (beyond the mere fact that he died--I was pretty sure he would, but that didn't mean I'd have to like it!) was that this whole plan things strikes me as really faulty ..er... planning. That Draco accidently got the Mastery of the Wand doesn't seem to me to impact the Snape factor in the plan at all. Voldemort didn't murder Snape *because* Draco had the mastery. He murdered Snape because he *thought* Snape had the mastery. He would have thought that according to Dumbledore's original plan, unless it was also part of the plan for Voldemort to know that Snape didn't really defeat Dumbledore after all. But, of course that wasn't part of the original plan, because Snape killing Dumbledore was supposed to help solidify Snape's position with Voldemort. The only other thing that makes sense to me was that Dumbledore hoped that Voldemort would think Snape had mastery of the wand and would thus *not* attack him, for fear that he would be defeated now that Snape had that super wand. However, this doesn't seem likely to have been Dumbledore's intent, as he left no provision in his will for Snape to have the wand. Had he done so, then Snape would have had it, instead of it being buried with Dumbledore. Nor did Dumbledore leave instructions for the wand to be burned, or broken in half, which he could easily have done if he desired that the wand be used by no one. Did he think that Voldemort would leave his tomb undesecrated and so leave instructions to be buried with it? That would make sense, unless you knew that Voldemort was a power-hungry villain who has no qualms or respect for anyone besides himself. And, moreover, that his most-favored Death Eater would, by your own design, be in charge of your burial tomb, thus providing him easy access to it. Carol: > Exactly what DD *did* anticipate is not clear, but it seems that in > HBP (both at Hogsmeade before he sees the Dark Mark and on the tower), > he wanted Snape to kill him, with only Harry present. (He starts to > send Harry in his Invisibility Cloak to find Snape, tell him what > happened, and speak to no one else. Montavilla47: That's a very good point. Do you think, in that case, that Snape would have arrived and Dumbledore would laid his wand down (thus preventing any possibility of the wand mastery passing) and explained to Harry what was going on? That actually makes sense as a plan. Of course, Harry would be upset, but Dumbledore would have been able to explain that he had been dying for some time, and that Snape was helping him out. Which would have explained the trust and would have helped out with that nasty problem of how Snape was supposed to get Harry to believe him about DD's final message. I like it. Of course, it's anyone's bet whether Harry would have been able to listen at all--given that he'd only heard that evening about Snape taking the prophecy to Voldemort. Imagine the scene that would have been! Carol: > In any case, while DD expected LV to find out about the Elder Wand and > go looking for it, he didn't necessarily expect him to *find* it. Nor > would he have done so had it not been for two incidents that DD could > not have anticipated: the backfiring wand in "Seven Potters" that > sends LV searching for the wand (after torturing Ollivander) and > Harry's dropping the photograph of Gellert Grindelwald at Bathilda's > house, enabling LV to discover the identity of the merry-faced thief, > whose whereabouts he still has to determine. Montavilla47: The problem I have with that scenario is that: 1) Ollivander was kidnapped a year before Dumbledore died and at that point, Voldemort was likely to start looking for the wand. It's really odder that he didn't start looking until Malfoy's wand was broken than that he started looking for it afterwards. I mean, this is the guy that went to Albania when he was young to search for something a ghost told him about. 2) Gellert Grindelwald was pretty famous. It's plausible that Harry doesn't know who the pretty blond boy was, because he's Harry and he doesn't know much about or care about history at all. But Tom Riddle was all about power and greatness. And he was around when Grindelwald was at the height of his power. And it's not like Grindelwald disappeared and changed his name. Surely, there would have been lots of pictures of Grindelwald as a young man. (In fact, it's rather surprising that Gregorovich didn't recognize that face from photographs-- Grindelwald affected Wizards internationally and there would have been biographies written about him in Bulgaria, as well as England.) While it turned out that Voldemort was stymied in his search, that was a lucky accident. As a planner, Dumbledore would need to assume the opposite--that it would take Voldemort less, rather than more time to discover the trail--as it involved people Voldemort had already captured and people who could be easily identified and found. Carol: > And then, once LV has found Grindelwald and stolen the wand from DD's > grave, he still has to discover that the wand doesn't work properly > for him (odd that he would even think that, considering how > effectively he uses it to kill people and conjure Nagini's protective > bubble) and arrive at the conclusion that Snape is the wand's master > *before* Snape sees Nagini in her bubble. There was some risk to > Snape, but his death was by no means inevitable, and had he been > killed without imparting that key message to Harry, DD's plan would > have failed altogether. > > I think that Pippin must be right--DD intended for Snape to destroy > the wand or hide it so that LV could never get it. (Snape could use > Occlumency and cunning to protect himself from detection.) It's even > possible that DD wanted Snape to kill LV if Harry failed though, > admittedly, there's no direct evidence to support that particular > speculation. Certainly, DD didn't want the wand buried with him where > LV could obtain it by grave robbery. Montavilla47: Again, if that were the case, then Dumbledore should have communicated that to Snape. He could have done so when he asked Snape to kill him. Or, if he felt that was too much information at the time, then he could have easily put that request in his will--meaning that Snape wouldn't need to be involved at all. The thing would be done as a matter of course. Had he wanted it hidden, he could have asked Snape beforehand-- or he could have asked Snape in his portrait form. Heh. He could have left the wand to Harry in his will. That would have really annoyed Voldemort. And it would have made that whole "nobody kills Harry but me" order more sensible. Carol: > Potioncat askded for links to earlier posts on the subject. Here are > two of mine: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177716 (scroll to > the last section; it's a long post) and > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174484 > > Carol, certain only that Snape's death was not part of DD's plan, as > indicated by his words and attitude in "King's Cross" and the > necessity for Snape to be alive to deliver his message to Harry > which has a slightly different take on what DD's plan might have been. > Montavilla47: Thanks for the links, Carol. I want to believe, like you, that Dumbledore's manipulative mindset is put to the service of his love for others, Harry and Snape included. And, it's not like he didn't love Moody, too. And yet, he put Moody (along with a whole lot of other people important to him and to Harry) into danger for a plan that could easily, and did, go wrong. I'm sure it's not easy to out-think someone like Voldemort, who is devious, brilliant, and insane. But it doesn't seem that difficult to figure out, if you have the world's best wand, that someone obsessed with powerful trinkets is going to want to have it. Nor does it seem like a huge leap in logic to assume that Voldemort, who has no respect for other people's lives, would callously slaughter the person he thinks stands in his way--even if that person is currenly running Hogwarts. Montavilla47 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 23 19:15:41 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:15:41 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178348 Carol: > I think that Pippin must be right--DD intended for Snape to destroy > the wand or hide it so that LV could never get it. (Snape could use > Occlumency and cunning to protect himself from detection.) It's even > possible that DD wanted Snape to kill LV if Harry failed though, > admittedly, there's no direct evidence to support that particular > speculation. Certainly, DD didn't want the wand buried with him where > LV could obtain it by grave robbery. > snip > > Carol, certain only that Snape's death was not part of DD's plan, as > indicated by his words and attitude in "King's Cross" and the > necessity for Snape to be alive to deliver his message to Harry> > which has a slightly different take on what DD's plan might have been. Potioncat: So....do you think Snape knew the wand-lore of the Elder wand? Did he catch on what LV was getting at in those final moments? It doesn't look as if Snape knew he was supposed to destroy the wand, but then, he didn't have a chance to, did he? I'm still confused about what should have happened. Carol, you think the wand would have lost all magic. Why do you think that? From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 19:56:27 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:56:27 -0000 Subject: Controversy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178349 So, my initial reaction to the Dumbledore news could probably best be described by an answer on a response poll I saw on some Harry Potter website - 'Interesting. Anyway...' I agree with many of the responses that have come up - that it's nice enough, not especially relevant, and slightly backhanded/cowardly/pathetic/sensationlistic to not have it in the actual books. But mostly I thought it was about as important as the other information - Neville married Hannah? Huh. She does have a lot of random facts in her head, though sometimes doesn't have the facts we wish she had. And I've mostly kept out of the discussion, because it's pretty well covered on every angle, and I'm not really sure what to do with the information - search through the books and look for instances that might have been hints that JKR was throwing at us? Nah. Also, message boards are a difficult place to be tactful or express subtleties or sarcasm, and a very easy place to be misunderstood, so I feel it would not be hard to inadvertently insult someone on a personal level - and since this started it seems like every other post has something in it that has me wondering... is that an offensive comment, or am I reading too much into it? I think, though, at this point, I'm glad she said it. I don't think it adds that much to the book. It certainly wasn't stunningly brave or remotely offensive. But the fact that it can dredge up this much discussion probably achieves something she was never able to achieve throughout her books. She seems to so want them to be a treatise on prejudice and racism and bigotry. But it's all so obvious, so old, so played, that it's not controversial in the slightest. (Unless you get into the whole 'Slytherin as secret underclass, books are actually PRO bigotry' angle, which I don't believe was her point, and the subversive view complicates this discussion.) I mean, her clear analogy was with the Nazis, and nobody is really going to be breaking any barriers by declaring the Holocaust bad. It's a nice enough message for kids, that prejudice and bigotry are wrong, but she's not exactly challenging anyone with it. Racism is almost absent from the books, and we have a fictional blood differentiation to stand in for racism. It works nicely and easily. Then, this. The reminder that there IS still bigotry and prejudice. And bigotry and prejudice that are not as unaccepted as many might believe or hope. We had protracted discussions about the 'soft bigotry' of Slughorn, and whether his exclusionary tactics or slight assumptions made him a bigot, albeit a softer, gentler, more quaint bigot than the in-your-face bloodism of the Malfoys. And yet, here we can see that for some, having a gay character - and really, a character not even defined as gay in the text, can make the series, for some, a 'gay' series. It brings in worries about the 'gay lifestyle'. It makes the books as a whole, or at least parts of them, sexual and inappropriate. This is regardless of the fact that it was NOT like that when the character was an assumed heterosexual (or, as he really seemed, asexual). Because gay=sex. Gay=controversy. Gay=inappropriate. Or gay=distasteful. Because it can still be, to some people, acceptable to say you would not want to read or watch something because it contained someone gay as a character. Would it be the same for someone to say they didn't want to read a book because there happened to be a black person in it, or a woman, or a Hindu? Because, since they were present, that would mean the book was about the feminine lifestyle or the Hindu lifestyle, or the black lifestyle. Or to say that prejudice against people who are gay is simply a difference of political opinion - again, can my political differences mean I don't want to see, know, hear about or otherwise acknowledge blacks, women, or Hindus? Most political issues and beliefs aren't really tied incontrovertibly with your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So, in the end, JKR can have a little bit of what I think she strove for. She wanted to write something that would stand against bigotry and for equality and acceptance. And we'll be debating for years to come how successful she was at that - whether the books are more for children or adults, whether she's too trite, or whether she's actually being subversive. But the real controversy is that there is a group a character can be a part of that some of her readers still would want to exclude. It may be disappointing that it's not part of the book itself, as blended into the background as race and gender, so that the focus on 'purity of blood' could more easily represent it, without it being an actual issue with in the books... but by telling everyone after the fact, she has done SOMETHING to say that her views on prejudice and bigotry are universal, and the world she created reflects that. Again, how she did it and how successful it was is another thing that will be debated for a long time. :) But this is one of those times being on these boards really has changed my mind about something. I went from being pretty indifferent to the news to thinking that something actually happened, based on the responses here. I don't think I'm exactly happier realizing that than I was before, but it does open my eyes. Even the most obvious statements on prejudice become less obvious if you tap into certain things. Maybe the encyclopedia really will further open the world up and inspire thought where there wasn't before. Or maybe it will inspire more stonewalled rejection. Hard to say, I suppose. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Oct 23 20:05:03 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Should JKR shut up? Message-ID: <15413151.1193169904122.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178350 From: va32h >Or as Daniel Radcliffe said of his performance in Equus - parents >hesitated to bring their children to the play because he is naked in >one brief scene, but they had no problem with the fact that his >character brutally mutilates six horses! > >We really need to rethink our priorities. If he had been in WHOSE LIFE IS IT ANYWAY? instead of EQUUS, would JKR have put in a scene where Harry was paralyzed instead of naked in DH? Bart From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 20:13:14 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178351 Carol wrote: Carol, who thinks that JKR has sidetracked us from the real themes of the book with her imagined view of Dumbledore ***Katie: I disagree. The real theme of the book - the *main* theme of the book - is that bigotry is wrong and tolorance and acceptance are right. From the reaction of many fans, I can see that there is a lot more work to do, even amongst Potter fans, in working towards tolorance and acceptance. JK obviously felt these books were a long thesis against bigotry. I have previously debated whether or not she was successful in this pursuit (IMO, the House Elf story was a big failure)...however, there is no doubt in my mind that this was certainly her *intention*. I see Dumbledore's sexuality as simply a continuation of what she (and I) saw as the theme of the books. I simply wish that she had actually included it in the books, instead of just admitting it now. Part of the problem with not including openly gay characters in mainstream works that are *not* primarily about homosexual issues, is that then people don't see that gay people are normal and not overly focused on their sexuality. Dumbledore's sexuality is only a distracting issue if it's made into one. 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 20:43:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:43:00 -0000 Subject: A Flaw in the Plan (was: DD and LV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178352 Carol earlier: > > I think that Pippin must be right--DD intended for Snape to destroy the wand or hide it so that LV could never get it. (Snape could use Occlumency and cunning to protect himself from detection.) It's even possible that DD wanted Snape to kill LV if Harry failed though, admittedly, there's no direct evidence to support that particular speculation. Certainly, DD didn't want the wand buried with him where LV could obtain it by grave robbery. > > > > > > Carol, certain only that Snape's death was not part of DD's plan, as indicated by his words and attitude in "King's Cross" and the necessity for Snape to be alive to deliver his message to Harry > Potioncat responded: > So....do you think Snape knew the wand-lore of the Elder wand? Did he catch on what LV was getting at in those final moments? It doesn't look as if Snape knew he was supposed to destroy the wand, but then, he didn't have a chance to, did he? > > I'm still confused about what should have happened. Carol, you think the wand would have lost all magic. Why do you think that? > Carol: I'm confused, too, and am only speculating as to why DD wanted Snape to keep the Elder Wand and how that might have prevented his death. Maybe everything went wrong from the moment Harry was unable to fetch Snape after DD drank the potion because Draco showed up and disarmed DD, but DD still had to go on with his plan to have Snape kill him to protect Draco's soul and keep Snape from being killed by the UV, and hope for the best. As for what Portrait!DD told Snape after the fact, it's impossible to say. I think that Snape did *not* know about the Elder Wand, or, if he did, he didn't care, because he was focused on the snake being magically protected and the need to get the message to Harry immediately. As for why I think that the wand would lose its powers altogether rather than becoming just an ordinary wand, it really was already just an ordinary wand for anyone who wasn't its master (even Voldemort though exactly how he knew it wouldn't do extraordinary magic is unclear; it certainly killed people and created that protective bubble for Nagini just as effectively as the yew-and-Phoenix-feather wand that created the Horcruxes and chose Tom Riddle in the first place). I'm basing my supposition on Harry's words near the end of the last non-epilogue chapter: "If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it? the previous master will never have been defeated. That will be the end of it" (DH Am. ed. 749). It doesn't sound to me as if it will just become an ordinary wand. It sounds as if it will just become a stick (a branch from an elder tree with no magical core, if there's any truth to the Three Brothers story). And the power of attracting rival wizards who will fight and steal and kill for it will be ended as well. Surely, that's what DD was trying to do by having Snape kill him and choosing his own death--unless LV is right that DD intended to make Snape the true master of the wand (743), in which case, DD must really have trusted his desire to defeat Voldemort and not be tempted by the wand himself. (If he were the wand's master and had it with him when LV tried to AK him, the AK would have failed, perhaps deflecting onto LV.) But Harry says that Snape never defeated DD, not because of Draco but because the death was planned between them: "Dumbledore intended to die undefeated, the wand's last true master! If all had gone as planned, the wand's power would have died with him because it had never been won from him!" (742). Just where Harry gets this idea is unclear since DD only states that he intended for Snape to have the wand, and Harry knows about the planned death not from "King's Cross" but from "the Prince's Tale," in which DD gives Snape several reasons for wanting him to kill him but does not include the wand among them. But again, "the wand's power would have died" sounds to me like something more than the Elder Wand simply becoming a wand like any other. It sounds as if its magic would "die" altogether. If that's the case, Snape could simply hand over the wand when LV demanded it, demonstrate that he can't work it either, and state that it had somehow lost its power. Then there would be no reason to kill snape; LV would simply need to find some other solution to the Harry problem--for example, having a DE disarm him and then using his own wand to kill him. It's all very confusing and complex. As the narrator, voicing the pov of the hobbits, says somewhere in LOTR, "The explanation did not seem to explain." But there has to be a reason why DD wanted Snape to have the wand and why his keeping the wand would have kept him alive. "Poor Severus.... That bit didn't work out." Carol, thinking that Snape died because JKR wanted that particular death scene and not as part of Dumbledore's plan From easimm at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 20:45:26 2007 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:45:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178353 Curlyhornedsnorkack writes: I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I wonder if a clue to Dumbledore's homosexuality could have been his quest for immortality. Having once faced the prospect of never having children, as many gay people still do, I did think of ways in which I could pass what I lived on into the future. If I had had access to magic that could have made me immortal, I would have been interested. Dumbledore was interested in the immortality that his friend Nicolas Flammel had achieved, and he was spend a lot of time on the deathly hallows. He never spoke of wanting to create a dynasty. By the way, I don't think Voldemort's quest for immortality was a result of being gay. According to Dumbledore, Voldemort was simply self-contained, and had no interest in closeness with anyone else, even with heaving-breasts Bellatrix. (This might be a good topic of discussion if someone wants it: Could Voldy and Bellatrix have been lovers? I suppose there are lots of ships out there about that one. And, also, can anyone tell me what happened to Bellatrix'es husband? When I did have the books with me I couldn't find the answer.) -Thanks! Snorky From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Oct 23 20:59:13 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:59:13 +0200 Subject: Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality References: Message-ID: <00d101c815b7$91f8f6b0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178354 curlyhornedsnorkack wrote: > Curlyhornedsnorkack writes: > > I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I wonder if a clue > to Dumbledore's homosexuality could have been his quest for > immortality. Miles After snipping the questionable psychological thoughts, just one question: Where in canon do we learn of anything like a strive for immortality on Dumbledore's side? I only know that he is fearless concerning death... Miles From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 21:17:30 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:17:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710231417x2a8942aapa11ba4fa2921d7e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178355 > > Curlyhornedsnorkack writes: > > Dumbledore was interested in the immortality that his friend Nicolas > Flammel had achieved, and he was spend a lot of time on the deathly > hallows. He never spoke of wanting to create a dynasty. montims: and yet Nicolas Flammel was married, so your argument doesn't hold water, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 21:41:55 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:41:55 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471E6AA3.3010107@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178356 Lee Kaiwen: > Ephebophilia (or hebephilia, as it's also called) is defined as ... colebiancardi: > as wiki points out, this term is full of issues ... I appreciate the feedback, but the controversiality of the term has nothing to do with my point, which is simply that hebephilia *is* clearly defined (whatever your clinical opinion of it might be), so there really is no reason for so many folk misrepresenting what Del is saying. colebiancardi: > I am interested in why someone would think that DD has this condition > and what that term means to them. Easy -- read Del's post. This WAS my point. He presented a cogent and lucid argument, with lots of citations from canon, only to get hit with a faceful of outrage over things he clearly did NOT say. Example: colebiancardi: > Just because DD is gay doesn't mean he lusts after young teens. Del did NOT say "DD lusts after young teens because he's gay." He couldn't have, because he doesn't believe DD is homosexual at all. I know, because I read Del's posts and he says so quite clearly. My only interest in this is that I found Del's argument well-presented and I was kind of hoping to see a discussion of his points. Instead what we got was a list-ful of jerky knees from a whole lot of folk who apparently didn't bother to digest what he was saying before hitting their Reply keys. --CJ (who thinks it's time to take his dog home now, since this isn't really his fight) From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 23 22:05:42 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:05:42 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <471E6AA3.3010107@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178357 > Lee Kaiwen: > > Del did NOT say "DD lusts after young teens because he's gay." He > couldn't have, because he doesn't believe DD is homosexual at all. I > know, because I read Del's posts and he says so quite clearly. > > My only interest in this is that I found Del's argument well-presented > and I was kind of hoping to see a discussion of his points. Instead what > we got was a list-ful of jerky knees from a whole lot of folk who > apparently didn't bother to digest what he was saying before hitting > their Reply keys. > colebiancardi: I read Del's post and imho, it was not well-presented or well argued. I don't think people responsed with knee-jerk reactions; it was that Del's supposition was way off the mark of what JKR stated about DD. to refresh: del: "If you add on top of all this the facts that: 1- We've never heard of DD having ever loved a man, any man, any *adult* man. 2- DD deliberately chose to spend his life at Hogwarts. Around teenagers. Lots and lots of teenagers. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. Compared to how many single adult men? 3- We know that DD sometimes goes *invisibly* around the castle at night. I'd say we have a good case of DD being not gay, but ephebophile: it's not men he loves, but teenage boys. colebiancardi: where on earth does one go from being gay to ephebophile? What if GG was a female instead of a male and the rest of the story was the same? Would we think that DD prefers young teen females? Harry goes around the castle invisibly at night - does that mean that Ginny needs to keep an eye out on him? del: "Now where does that leave Harry? What do we know of DD's feelings for Harry? Well, he told them to us himself, didn't he? He said that he had come to "care" for Harry, that he didn't want LV to know that Harry and DD were "more" than student and teacher, and so on. And let's not forget DD's tear when Harry said that he was "DD's man, through and through": what prompted those tears, Harry's expressed feelings of loyalty, or the resonance that those words might have had with some romantic dream on the part of DD?" colebiancardi: oh please. romantic dream on the part of DD? Trust me, children know about sexual vibes from adults and Harry was a 15 year old at that time. If DD was straight and it was Helda Potter instead of Harry Potter and Helda stated that she was DD's man's thru & thru (same setting, same everything), would you think that 150 year old DD had the hots for Helda? Del: "See, that's the problem I have with JKR revealing that DD is "gay": the canon doesn't support at all DD being gay (ie attracted to grown men), but it amply supports DD being ephebophile (ie attracted to teenage boys)." colebiancardi: and there is where I differ with Del. I see nothing in the HP world that supports DD being an ephebophile - DD plays his role well; an adult male, who is wise and good and who CARES about the children he teaches/protects, just like any good adult who deals with children. wait, there is more - del goes back on his/her statement: del: "Do I believe that DD was ephebophile? No. First because either I believe JKR who says "gay", or I believe what I see in the canon which says, well, nothing at all, and thus implicitely classic heterosexual. And second because it's just too yucky to see things that way, and frankly I don't want to be on Rita Skeeter's side on anything. But do I believe that the canon supports ephebophilia far more than homosexuality? You bet. Celibate ephebophilia (ie: I don't think DD ever sexually acted on it, at least once he became an adult), but ephebophilia nonetheless. And that stinks." colebiancardi: why? why would you think that there is canon to support that theory over what the author has just stated? DD had an age-appropriate crush/love/romance with another male of his own age. Nothing else in the books makes DD a creepy kind of man who secretly lusts after hot boys. The fact that I view gays as just another facet of being part of the human race, doesn't mean I have to canon to support this. Just as I know Lee is black, because JKR made him that way, DD is gay, because JKR made him that way. I really do not believe that JKR wanted her comments on DD being gay to be taken so out of context that he is really a pervert who secretly lusts after teenage boys. del: "And there's another thing that stinks. Look at what DD's love for GG made him do: it made him wait for decades before confronting evil, allowing countless innocents to be harmed and killed. How does this compare to DD's (and JKR's) message about Love and the Power of Love? DD keeps telling Harry that it's his ability to love which will eventually allow him to beat LV. But what did DD's ability to love do to him? It *prevented* him from fighting evil. DD had to set his love aside in order to be able to beat evil. How come the rules are so different in his case? Ah, yes: his was a gay love. Apparently, heterosexual love and motherly love fortify one against evil, but gay love weakens one." colebiancardi: DD didn't wait decades to defeat GG. And if GG was an evil, beautiful woman and DD was straight, the consequences would have been the same. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight or lusting after age-inappropriate boys. del: "All of you out there who are so happy about JKR making DD gay really should reconsider what it implies about DD and about gay love: it's not at all what you might think." colebiancardi: and maybe some should reconsider this whole thread. I think a quote from Freud sums this up for me - "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" . colebiancardi From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 22:22:20 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:22:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality In-Reply-To: <00d101c815b7$91f8f6b0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178358 Miles: After snipping the questionable psychological thoughts, just one question: Where in canon do we learn of anything like a strive for immortality on Dumbledore's side? I only know that he is fearless concerning death... Miles Tiffany: I agree with Miles, being fearless & a daredeil is great in its' own right because my brother is like that & we know that DD is that way regarding death. However there's never any mention in the canon that I've read regarding DD's desire for immortality. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 23 22:31:23 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:31:23 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178359 > ***Katie: > I disagree. The real theme of the book - the *main* theme of the book - is that bigotry is wrong and tolorance and acceptance are right. > > From the reaction of many fans, I can see that there is a lot more work to do, even amongst Potter fans, in working towards tolorance and acceptance. JK obviously felt these books were a long thesis against bigotry. I have previously debated whether or not she was successful in this pursuit (IMO, the House Elf story was a big failure)...however, there is no doubt in my mind that this was certainly her *intention*. Pippin: LOL! Ain't it the truth? Nobody thinks they're prejudiced, they just think they're being asked to show tolerance and acceptance of something that feels "wrong", whether it's muggleborns having magic or House Elves that actually like serving wizards. It seems to be an issue in canon whether something is really wrong, in the sense that someone is suffering unjustly, or whether it just reminds you of something that's wrong. There are, in real life, a large number of people who do domestic work without wages, consider it their duty to obey the master of the house, and regard the prospect of liberation with terror and shame. And as far as I can tell, many of them love the families they serve and don't believe they are oppressed, despite the earnest efforts of some to convince them of it. I'm talking about traditional housewives, of course. Would it help the Elves to deny the reality of their feelings, disempower them by saying they've been brainwashed (even if they are), or force them to make a new life, especially if they're in old age or poor health as Kreacher was? I don't think JKR's purpose was to justify slavery, but to raise our consciousness that in some senses slavery might exist where we think it's been abolished, and to get us to think about why this might be so and what might be done about it. Pippin From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 22:52:52 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JKR's liberal Worldview (DD gay etc..) Message-ID: <473571.36793.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178360 All the snips here are from Bart who said: <> No, it's an accurate description. Right-wingers are 'fearful' of Gays and believe that somehow gay people will bring down civilization if to numerous or powerful. An assumption that is hard to separate from the same illogic that was used against blacks in the 50-60's. America will never turn gay anymore then it will black. Demographics do matter however as Israel?s fear of being out populated by the Isreali Arabs in their midst is logical. A phobia is an irrational fear. If having a phobia made you nuts Ron would have been locked up for his agoraphobia (fear of spiders (I'm not sure of spelling)). Only the most deliberating fears (such as fear of water) make you sick enough to be mentally ill. The left implies the typical illogic of the right with the term homophobia, not mental illness. Like most liberals I question the mental capacities of those on the far right. Not their mental stability. I hope one day that instead of awaiting miracles that they find the reason of science. In my good book a well lead life is a life of reason, not amens. I believe based on reason that organized religion of any sort is a way to keep the downtrodden down for they can rely on miracles instead their own hard effort for progress. I do believe that JKR is a religious person which means she is not as extreme as myself, but her worldview is definitely Liberal. She presents a world in which the powerful (pure-blood) are fearful of losing power to the growing population of the 'immigrant' muggle born. They are fearful of losing their privileges and power to the 'new comers'. In the same way in which the powerful English speaking majority in America is fearful of losing power to the increasing Spanish speaking minority. Or the French fear their growing Arab minority. It?s clear to me that the DE in Harry Potter reflect the extreme hard illogical right, and their extreme methods. They are not just representative of the Nazi's but of the worst excesses of the right. There's a reason why JKR initially called the Death Eaters the Knights of Walpurgis. They are an obvious parallel to the Klu Klux Clan. JKR's work is clearly a work of the left. Perhaps the right has a 'reason' to burn it. As any author is she is trying to promote her own values and Harry Potter has given her a huge soap box to do so on. And these for the most part are liberal secular values. <> Ah, but if she had done this, she would have been compromising her own values. It clear that JKR thinks that Gay is OK and she wants the world to know it. I'm sure she's made Warner Brothers mad (though they would never say it) as the gross of the next two movies will definitely be hurt. And many points are made clearer in canon by the revelation, I for one did not truly understand one Dumbledore seemed to compromise their values for a new friend, but it makes sense for a bed-mate. After all even Ann Coulter is dating a cursed-liberal now. Most people Gay or straight will compromise their values for a good roll in the hay. DD learns the danger of that. But also the power of love from his relationship with GG and also because of what happened with Ariana. And yes Flitwick would be a stereotype, but then JKR could have made Luna a lesbian which would have been worse. <> I can see the connection between Ed Koch and Dumbledore. If Ed is gay (and there is no proof that he is) then he is example of a gay person applying 'reason to his impulses'. In other words although he might be genetically gay he chooses not to be, but instead chooses to be caste. The RR often says that 'gayness is a choice', I will admit that Koch might be an example that partially makes their point. I kind of think this is what JKR implies that Dumbledore does after the disaster of GG. A man who decided that despite his impulses he needed to apply reason to control them for the good; or maybe like many after his great loves death (or in this case GG being imprisoned for life; which for all purposes is the same thing) he could never bring himself 'to love another.' BTW do you think this is one reason DD was interested in the Philosophers? Stone, so both he and GG could outlive GG sentence and have hope of seeing each other again. Although in battle the PP would be an effective counter to the EW. After all someone sentenced to 125 years to life could theoretically be freed after the125 years? Perhaps DD defeated the Elder Wand with the Philosopher?s Stone. A good fan fic idea, if I were partial to writing a gay fic myself, which I?m not. Perhaps DD defeated ~ DA Jones A liberal who supports the Iraq war. Unlike God we are proven to exist. __________________________________________________ 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 bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 23 23:09:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:09:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178361 --- "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > > Curlyhornedsnorkack writes: > > I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I wonder if a > clue to Dumbledore's homosexuality could have been his quest for > immortality. ... > > Dumbledore was interested in the immortality that his friend Nicolas > Flammel had achieved, and he was spend a lot of time on the deathly > hallows. He never spoke of wanting to create a dynasty. > > ... > > -Thanks! > > Snorky bboyminn: I think Dumbledore's interest in immortality was purely academic. He wasn't interested /in/ achieving immortality, he was curious /about/ how one goes about it. I suspect that is because he knew this was an obsession of Voldemorts, and the more he new about it, the better chance he had at guessing what Voldemort had done or might do. But I really don't see Dumbledore chasing immortality the way Voldemort is. Dumbledore seemed quite comfortable with death. As a general note, let's keep in mind that Dumbledore was well over 100 years old. I think he was past the stage where SEX dominated his thoughts and his life. Just a few of my thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 23 23:17:52 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:17:52 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Let's play nice and stay on topic, please Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178362 Greetings from Hexquarters! As many of you may also have done, we elfy types have noticed a bit of a tendency for threads to drift off-topic lately, and we wanted to take this opportunity to enlist your assistance in keeping threads on-topic and in generally helping the HPfGU list run smoothly. All posts to the main list must make a canon point and discuss the works or words of JK Rowling. If you want to reply to a post that uses extraneous (i.e., non-HP) material to make a canon point, please make sure that your response ties the discussion back to the books. Please note that discussion of a character's sexuality is *not* necessarily off-topic for the main HPfGU list. As long as the post discusses the character within the story, it is fine. However, please remember that a mere mention of JK Rowling or of a character's name does *not* make a post on topic. The post itself needs to make a canon point. If you want to respond only to extraneous, non-HP points, please post your response to our sister list, HPFGU-OTChatter list, which is the place for all off-topic posts. It's a fun and friendly place where people enjoy talking about all sorts of things, and it can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter We would like to remind all members to discuss the topic, not other members. Disagreement with the other's points should be based on one's own points or interpretations, not based on one's interpretations of the other member. Disagreements should also be courteously phrased, and opinion language should be used when expressing an opinion. We elves have noticed that things seem to heat up rapidly on the list when members state strongly-held opinions as if they were fact. This can understandably cause consternation in others and is why our posting rules require the use of opinion language: '...when expressing an opinion (as opposed to citing canon) or other beliefs (e.g., religious) be sure to make this clear ("I believe..." or "In my opinion...").' For further information about these and our other posting rules, check out our posting guidelines at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/PostingRules25Mar07.html Thanks! The list elves From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 23 23:21:10 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:21:10 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > But. But. But didn't canon show us a Lupin who finally **allowed** > himself to love Tonks fully after Harry yelled at him? Marianne: Not that I saw. I saw a man happy about the birth of his son, a child who was spared being a werewolf. But, I don't think we ever had a moment, other than Harry's thinking he saw Remus and Tonks holding hands, where Remus ever seemed happy with his relationship/marriage. Now, that's just me, and it's perfectly valid to see a father happy about his new son and see a man happy with his entire family life. It just wasn't evident to me, especially since we had instance after instance of Remus being clearly unhappy and clearly regretting his marriage. SSSusam > I mean, yeah, we saw resistance and hesitation and surliness and > *seeming* lack of interest in Tonks. But I never took that as Lupin > *truly* not wanting Tonks. I took it all as that insecurity & fear > and even *disgust* with himself for not having made sure Tonks didn't > become pregnant. I think Lupin was truly tormented about the > possibility that Tonks had made a horrible mistake in loving him and > in the possibility that they could have a child who would either be a > werewolf or would be horrified to discover that his/her father was > one. > > All of this struck me as very reasonable on Lupin's part. Marianne: Me, too. And I see this in a completely different light. I think this could also be seen as Lupin realizing he has again fallen into the pattern he's always shown, which is to allow himself to do what makes other people happy, not necessarily what he wants or thinks is the right thing to do. Tonks practically lassoed him in the Hospital scene in HBP, and everyone else stood around, taking her side, and telling Remus basically that the way he felt or thought was wrong, that Tonks's feelings were right. She loved him, and he was bound to accept that and sail off into the sunset with her, only later allowing himself to voice his real feelings, that the whole thing was a dreadful mistake. Marianne From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 22:35:30 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:35:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. References: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> <006801c81583$9ecd8fb0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <012c01c815c5$04441350$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178364 > k12listmomma wrote: >> Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not about >> anyone's sexuality. By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this >> work about sexuality, and that does change things. > > Miles: > No, the work is not about sexuality because one of the characters is gay, > and thus it does not change things. Several people have said "it does not change things", but I think it would. The fight with Grindewald is just one example that I would have seen differently: if she had announced DD's gayness and romantic relationship earlier, because that famous battle could have possibly been a "lover's quarrel that got heated", and DD's sister got killed in it. I think Aberforth would have had ever more reason to be angry at DD- putting his love and attention to another man rather than spending his love at home. It changes what we would think of DD possibly, if he wasn't fighting over power and treatment of Muggles, but for something far more different. Shelley > Miles > To repeat a question I asked before, what good is a message of tolerance > that excludes certain groups for tactical reasons? I don't know if we will ever know if when she wrote about tolerance and acceptance during this entire series if she had gays in mind. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 22:44:18 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:44:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. References: Message-ID: <013901c815c6$3f2311f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178365 > >--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" > wrote: > >> > It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a very >> common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you > like to >> read about. I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so > that >> would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I > would not >> have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read > them to my >> children had this series been about gays. That's just not > something that I >> even find to be remotely enjoyable. >> >> > > > I am a long time lurker who just felt compelled to write as I am > shocked by the attitudes some people have had towards what I pretty > much felt was non-news. It doesn't matter to me what JKR's > motivations were for revealing this as it changes nothing for me. I > don't think there was much point in her revealing it but nonethless > I see no reason why people should react to it. I am surprised at the > complete contradiction in your statement Shelley. You said that you > would not have read the books because you do not find books about > gay lifestyles enjoyable but clearly you did find the books > enjoyable or you wouldn't be a member of this group. The fact is, I > understand that you might not want to read a book about gay > lifestyles but this book isn't about gay lifestyles, the fact that > it was such a revelation is because we did not see anything 'gay' > about DD's lifestyle. He just happened to be gay but the character, > that you used to enjoy reading, is the same. > > Becks Sorry, not a contradiction. I am assuming that if Rowling had made DD a gay character IN CANON, that is, if she has written DD's gayness into the books itself, and had announced his orientation in the first books, that would have changed my enjoyment of the books. But, it's not in canon. It's merely in an interview, which like so many of her interviews after the series was finished and released to the world, she seems to be pulling a lot of crap out of her butt that I don't even consider to be canon. Thus, my reading of Dumbledore, the one that is in the books, is of a straight character. Frankly, if she had even announced DD's gayness before this book, a lot of people might have connected that famous fight with Grindewald to be a lover's quarrel. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 23:15:54 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:15:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's liberal Worldview (DD gay etc..) References: <473571.36793.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <016801c815ca$a96d5170$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178366 All the snips here are from Bart who said: <> ~ DA Jones No, it's an accurate description. Right-wingers are 'fearful' of Gays and believe that somehow gay people will bring down civilization if to numerous or powerful. An assumption that is hard to separate from the same illogic that was used against blacks in the 50-60's. America will never turn gay anymore then it will black. Demographics do matter however as Israels fear of being out populated by the Isreali Arabs in their midst is logical. A phobia is an irrational fear. If having a phobia made you nuts Ron would have been locked up for his agoraphobia (fear of spiders (I'm not sure of spelling)). Only the most deliberating fears (such as fear of water) make you sick enough to be mentally ill. The left implies the typical illogic of the right with the term homophobia, not mental illness. Like most liberals I question the mental capacities of those on the far right. Not their mental stability. I hope one day that instead of awaiting miracles that they find the reason of science. Shelley now: DA Jones, where is the reason of science in your argument? "Right-wingers are 'fearful' of Gays" Really? Your proof or science for that one? "and believe that somehow gay people will bring down civilization if to numerous or powerful" Where are you getting these quotes from? It seems to me that you are doing nothing more than stereotyping people with a "straw man" argument just so that you can knock it down. There is no proof that real world "right wingers" hold the belief that you claim they have, just so you can abuse them in public. Seems to me the illogic is your alone for sake of argument- the people I meet in real life don't share such views. I agree with what Bart is saying- homophobia is a term used to say that anyone that doesn't hold to a certain ideology is "irrationally fearful" of a certain group of people, and it's a lie that's being spread just to spread an agenda. It's not accurate- I don't agree with homosexually, but that doesn't make me fearful, and neither does it make me a nutjob that fears that "they" will gain power. I just don't care to read about their lifestyle;I don't care to engage myself in things that are gay in nature. For me, it's the same as smut novels- novels meant to focus on a romantic relationship between a straight couple, where the highlight of the book is when they finally couple for sexual relations. What's your term for me for not liking those novels- "intercoursephobic"? "Romanticfobic"? To me, you are doing the very same thing that Rowling was trying to argue against in her books- the stereotyping and shunning people of different beliefs just for the sake of one feeling superior to the other. It's easy to put up walls between people, but harder to tear them down. Shelley From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 24 00:22:04 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:22:04 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <013901c815c6$3f2311f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178367 wrote: > > > Sorry, not a contradiction. I am assuming that if Rowling had made DD a gay > character IN CANON, that is, if she has written DD's gayness into the books > itself, and had announced his orientation in the first books, that would > have changed my enjoyment of the books. But, it's not in canon. It's merely > in an interview, which like so many of her interviews after the series was > finished and released to the world, she seems to be pulling a lot of crap > out of her butt that I don't even consider to be canon. Thus, my reading of > Dumbledore, the one that is in the books, is of a straight character. > colebiancardi: Other than whom someone sleeps with, which we never got any privy to with the single adult characters, why should there be a different reading on someone's character? I guess I don't understand. DD is still the same character from the very first book to the end. His sexuality, which is not a central theme in the books, just as Lee Jordan's race is not a central theme in the books, really has no impact on the choices he has made. His preference to males over females is no different than his skin color or his eye color - he cannot change that and that is who he is. His sexual preferences should not take away his goodness or his kindness and understanding - all of course, IMHO. > Frankly, if she had even announced DD's gayness before this book, a lot of > people might have connected that famous fight with Grindewald to be a > lover's quarrel. > > colebiancardi: and if GG was a woman - same thing, no? The argument is the same whether it was between best friends (like Harry & Ron, who have had some biggies in the series) or lovers. If JKR presented the same book with that tidbit prior to the release, I still would have read it the same way I originally read it - it was ABERFORTH, not ALBUS, who started the argument with GG and it was ABERFORTH, not ALBUS, who pulled out his wand to duel with GG. Albus was trying to stop GG. Doesn't sound like a lover's quarrel there, but a family matter. Something we can all relate to. When I was a kid, I know I've been in wicked fights with my sister and my friend tried to defuse the situation. colebiancardi From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Oct 24 01:01:28 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:01:28 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. References: <004d01c8157c$de1e39f0$6401a8c0@homemain> <006801c81583$9ecd8fb0$15b2a8c0@miles> <012c01c815c5$04441350$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: <011f01c815d9$69126980$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178368 k12listmomma wrote: > The fight with Grindewald is just one example that I would have seen > differently: if she had announced DD's gayness and romantic > relationship > earlier, because that famous battle could have possibly been a > "lover's > quarrel that got heated", and DD's sister got killed in it. Miles Could you please quote canon to support this possibility? The initial quarrel was between Aberforth and Gellert, Albus tried to stop the fight. I don't see how your interpretation could be possible? k12listmomma wrote: > I think > Aberforth would have had ever more reason to be angry at DD- putting > his > love and attention to another man rather than spending his love at > home. Miles But that was exactly what Aberforth thought and what he was angry about. There is not much difference in a deep friendship and the same plus sexual attraction, both can absorb people's attention totally. k12listmomma wrote: > It > changes what we would think of DD possibly, if he wasn't fighting > over power > and treatment of Muggles, but for something far more different. Miles You mean the showdown in 1945 now? Again I do not see any reason for your interpretation of canon. We learn in canon that DD *hesitated* to face Grindelwald - which means that his emotions (whatever kind they were) did not drive him, but slowed him down. k12listmomma wrote: > I don't know if we will ever know if when she wrote about tolerance > and > acceptance during this entire series if she had gays in mind. Miles Everything else would be revolting for me. Is there any reason to think that she does NOT include non-heterosexual persons in her scope of tolerance? >From the first book on I'd thought that JKR would never say "no" to racism, but "yes" to discriminating homosexuals. It was always clear in my impression, that her scope of tolerance is that of a typical modern, liberal, educated, and cosmopolitan person - which includes acceptance of homosexuality as something normal and neither "good" nor "bad" in itself. Miles, still wondering if the gap between "typical" or not concerning this question turns 180 degrees when crossing the Atlantic ocean From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 02:19:41 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:19:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178369 Katie snipped: I see Dumbledore's sexuality as simply a continuation of what she (and I) saw as the theme of the books. I simply wish that she had actually included it in the books, instead of just admitting it now. Part of the problem with not including openly gay characters in mainstream works that are *not* primarily about homosexual issues, is that then people don't see that gay people are normal and not overly focused on their sexuality. Dumbledore's sexuality is only a distracting issue if it's made into one. Snow: I believe you hit the nail on the head Katie! If you are not focusing on a person's sexual orientation and preference, why would you include it in the books or an interview? You realize that Harry and Ron are not gay because they married and had children but gays are not as readily detected. To what purpose should JKR have informed anyone of Dumbledore's preference unless it was to focus on sexuality? JKR was asked directly about Dumbledore's love life but her answer could have been, as discrete as Dumbledore always was in the books, by saying that he had a love loss. This is still a true statement and it did not affect his preference of choice. I had a friend who confided to me that she was now gay and should she announce this to her family, my reply was swift, "would you announce that you were having sex with anyone of any gender"? Why announce something that should be a 'don't-kiss-and-tell under any circumstance? Why would JKR announce that anyone was gay, at this point, if she hadn't made it as crystal clear in the books 'as Snape loved Lily', why does she feel compelled to now tell us that a main character had Any sexual preference, to what prevail? In my opinion, this was a very poor choice, by the author, to announce such a controversial matter, after the fact, no matter which side of the sexual divide you are on! If this author has succumbed to stereotyped tendencies, then I have to wonder if she maintained the story that she always "claimed" to have been devoted to write. Is the story you read in the last volume, the one you expected? I personally feel uneasy about it. The last book felt disconnected to the whole. I didn't feel the heart that I felt with the other books which is why I have refrained from writing again till now. I totally enjoyed the books and the many people that I have had the opportunity to meet and correspond with over the years through this forum. I have always been a proactive advocate for the author until now. I honestly believed she would write the story she always intended, but after this latest roust, I feel she may have been bought and sold at the political market. Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bunnyc at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 24 02:23:35 2007 From: bunnyc at optusnet.com.au (Bunny) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:23:35 +1000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. Message-ID: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> No: HPFGUIDX 178370 Everyone has an opinion on this and nobody is going to change anyone elses mind, so why bother? I for one am very very disappointed with Rowling 'outing' Dumbledore. I can't for the life of me see what it achieved and I feel it would have been best for her to have kept her mouth shut. This series started as a children's story which caught on with adults and I thoroughly enjoyed the many years we spent discussing and debating it and the anguish of waiting for the next book. I fully intended re-reading the books many more times and reading them to my grandchildren. However, to me, this has put a completely different complextion on the series and I don't think I'll be able to open the books again. I'll be imagining homosexual connotations in everything Dumbledore says or does something. No, I'm not a prude, but God invented Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and I don't see why homosexuality should be thrust in our faces. Children these days have a hard enough life... let them be children for as long as we can. OK, go ahead and tear me to shreds, but that's how I feel. Bunny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Oct 24 02:50:16 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's liberal Worldview (DD gay etc..) In-Reply-To: <473571.36793.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <473571.36793.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <471EB2E8.40607@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178371 career advisor wrote: > All the snips here are from Bart who said: > > < left-wing concept that anybody who does not agree with them > politically is mentally ill.>> > > No, it's an accurate description. Right-wingers are 'fearful' of Gays > and believe that somehow gay people will bring down civilization if > to numerous or powerful. Bart: My uncle and guardian was both gay and conservative. He was one of the founders of the Log Cabin Republicans. Career Advisor: > A phobia is an irrational fear. That's right. Bart From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 03:06:13 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes. Message-ID: <275229.57137.qm@web30813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178372 Bunny wrote: This series started as a children's storywhich caught on with adults and I thoroughly enjoyed the many years we spent discussing and debating it and the anguish of waiting for the next book. I fully intended re-reading the books many more times and reading them to my grandchildren. However, to me, this has put a completely different complextion on the series and I don't think I'll be able to open the books again. I'll be imagining homosexual connotations in everything Dumbledore says or does something. Pam says: I was going to stay out of this, but I can't keep my fingers shut anymore. Bunny, did you ever read Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath"? It's a classic book and it's taught to 7th graders (12 year olds) at my son's school. The main character, Tom Joad, is gay. It's not in the book, there's no mention of it anywhere in the text, but Tom Joad never has any relationships with women in the book, and I just decided he must be gay. Sorry to have ruined such a classic book for you, and now because I just imagined that Tom Joad is gay, I guess you'll never read it. And certainly 12 year olds shouldn't read it. Maybe Steinbeck thought so too, but he didn't say anything. Do you see my point? Bunny, you're entitled to your opinion, but can you remember one thing? Dumbledore can be gay or not. You decide, because A) it's not actually IN the books, and B) Dumbledore is FICTIONAL. If you decide not to re-read the series, please give your books to some school or underpriviledged child who will find joy and wonder in them and will not be bothered in the slightest by something someone said in the media last week. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 24 03:11:10 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:11:10 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall (was Re: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178373 > va32h: > > Well she definitely doesn't know why Dumbledore is there - she > expresses surprise at pretty much everything Dumbledore says. She > doesn't know who the Dursleys are, that baby Harry is coming to them > or that Hagrid is bringing him. Or even that James and Lily are > really dead and Voldemort really gone. Dumbledore seems amused to see Minerva, but not shocked or dismayed. Potioncat: Right. Once upon a time this list really X-rayed this scene. Not knowing DD as well as we do now, we wondered why DD was keeping McGonagall so far in the dark about everything. Some of us thought she was ESE! As it is, the main reason I think she came was to find out what the heck was going on. She had already had several years of Secretkeeper! DD (Oh, boy, is that ironic now!) > va32h: > So here's what I think: Minerva hears these rumors, goes up to > Dumbledore's office to ask for the scoop - DD is his usual cryptic > self and disappears. Potioncat: Well, actually. I think she says that Hagrid told her where he was meeting DD. I'm not sure that she knew Hagrid would have the baby. va32h: > I don't think she was in the Order (she's not in the photo that Moody shows Harry in OoTP is she?) Potioncat: No she isn't. But we do see her at 12 GP this time around. But I think you're right. va32h and she may or may not have been Deputy > Headmistress at the time. It wouldn't necessarily have been OOC for > her to leave the school even if she were...she is ready to fight for > Dumbledore and risk her position until DD reminds her that Hogwarts > needs her more than he does. Potioncat: Well, if she were Deputy, I think it would have been very wrong for her to leave Hogwarts under the circumstances. But JKR may not have worried about it, and at this point, we're not likely to find out. But I think it's very clear that Minerva, just like Harry, just like Severus, had to put up with DD's secrets. We see him sending her out of the room in PoA. She's in the dark in SS/PS. In HBP she admits that DD never said why he trusted Snape. She seems to admire him very much, but it must have been frustrating working for him! From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Oct 24 04:00:33 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:33 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178374 In a message dated 10/22/2007 4:12:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: Carol, who thinks that the entire Order probably knows about it as well I forgot that. Thanks. I had a DVD marathon with the kids this past weekend (and then we went to the dollar movie to see OotP again) and the books/movies were firmly mixed up in my mind. Still would any of these people have reason to comment to Harry that "Wow that old cloak is really holding up well. They usually fade by now" Very few would have known it came from James. And of those only Hermione (with her never ending research) and Lupin (just because IMO that seems like something that a former DADA professor would know) might comment on the cloak to Harry. Snape probably couldn't have carried less. I don't think that the Order members have actually seen Harry with the cloak. They would most likely have known that James had one but Harry hasn't to my knowledge wore it around them. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kernsac at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 04:08:50 2007 From: kernsac at gmail.com (Peggy Kern) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:08:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy References: Message-ID: <02d201c815f3$99308830$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 178375 Marianne: Not that I saw. I saw a man happy about the birth of his son, a child who was spared being a werewolf. Peggy now: What did I miss? How do we know his son was spared being a werewolf? Peggy From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Oct 24 04:19:26 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:19:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471EC7CE.2020708@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 178376 Meliss9900 at aol.com wrote: > As for Moody seeing thorough it, once again he was using a 'magical' eye to > see through a 'magical' object. I don't have much trouble believing that's > possible. But that's just it - any old invisibility cloak is 'magical' - but his is supposed to be infallible - even DEATH can't see through it. I'm leaning towards the eye having a special significance and legends of its own - after all, if it was just any old magical eye, Umbridge wouldn't have claimed it as a trophy. --Random832 From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Oct 24 04:22:17 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:22:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471EC879.2080209@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 178377 Meliss9900 at aol.com wrote: > as wiki points out, this term is full of issues and its research > methods - hence my TOTAL disregard with wiki's defination. The _term_ is not - the _concept_ is - what's controversial AIUI is the idea that what is described exists at all, as something distinct from pedophilia, not that the word itself refers to something different. --Random832 From cinders at voyager.net Wed Oct 24 03:05:19 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:05:19 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bunny" wrote: > I for one am very very disappointed with Rowling 'outing' > Dumbledore. I fully intended re-reading the books many > more times and reading them to my grandchildren. However, to > me, this has put a completely different complexion on the > series and I don't think I'll be able to open the books again. > I'll be imagining homosexual connotations in everything > Dumbledore says or does something. Carol: I think that you should enjoy and reread them. JKR didn't say that Dumbledore IS gay. She said when she was writing it, she pictured him as being gay, which was her own thoughts of him, not anyone else's. There's no where in the books that even hint to that. It's just a ploy. I'm sure she was joking overall, and everyone is making a big deal out of it. It's everyone else constantly bringing it up and saying he is gay. He is only what YOU want him to be. As a writer, JKR plants notions, it's up to you to take them where you want them. The books themselves do NOT say or hint he is gay and JK did NOT say he IS gay, only that SHE pictured him that way. These are just books and a story after all. Dumbledore is not a real person, so the books should just be read for entertainment, enjoyment, not taken like it is completely real. If YOU don't want him to be gay, then he isn't. Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 04:52:10 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:52:10 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: JKR didn't say that > Dumbledore IS gay. She said when she was writing it, she pictured him as being gay, which was her own thoughts of him, not anyone else's. There's no where in the books that even hint to that. It's just a > ploy. I'm sure she was joking overall, and everyone is making a big > deal out of it. It's everyone else constantly bringing it up and saying he is gay. He is only what YOU want him to be. As a writer, JKR plants notions, it's up to you to take them where you want them. The books themselves do NOT say or hint he is gay and JK did NOT say he IS gay, only that SHE pictured him that way. These are just books and a story after all. Dumbledore is not a real person, so the books should just be read for entertainment, enjoyment, not taken like it is completely real. If YOU don't want him to be gay, then he isn't. Tonks: Yes, I think she messed up. I have been very upset by this whole thing. And, NO, is has nothing to do with my own views of homosexuality. I am a liberal on that topic. It has to do with first the fact that DD has never told us that he is gay. Which means either that Rowling is right and she 'outed' him and it was not her place to do that. Or he is not gay and Rowling is just reading into his lifestyle like so many other people do with adults that are perfectly content to live celibate lives, perhaps for spiritual reason or otherwise. Either way, Rowling is wrong. That is the only way I can cope with this. I see DD as a biological het male who has chosen to be celibate. He is very intelligent and has more important and more exciting matters on his mind than sex. And maybe one of these days he will notice me and we will ride off into the sunset together as celibate 'lovers', which is a spiritual concept. I am not giving up hope. That old Lupin guy never wanted me anyway. lol. ;-) Tonks_op From Meliss9900 at aol.com Wed Oct 24 05:13:39 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:13:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other New News Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178380 In a message dated 10/23/2007 11:19:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, random832 at fastmail.us writes: But that's just it - any old invisibility cloak is 'magical' - but his is supposed to be infallible - even DEATH can't see through it. I'm leaning towards the eye having a special significance and legends of its own - after all, if it was just any old magical eye, Umbridge wouldn't have claimed it as a trophy. I was wondering that very thing when I wrote my initial post. Pity we will never know for certain. I also wonder what exactly happened to Moody's body. That bothered me a little bit. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 05:43:09 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:43:09 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178381 > Tonks: > Yes, I think she messed up. I have been very upset by this whole > thing. And, NO, is has nothing to do with my own views of > homosexuality. I am a liberal on that topic. It has to do with first > the fact that DD has never told us that he is gay. Which means > either that Rowling is right and she 'outed' him and it was not her > place to do that. Or he is not gay and Rowling is just reading into > his lifestyle like so many other people do with adults that are > perfectly content to live celibate lives, perhaps for spiritual > reason or otherwise. Either way, Rowling is wrong. That is the only > way I can cope with this. I see DD as a biological het male who has > chosen to be celibate. He is very intelligent and has more important > and more exciting matters on his mind than sex. And maybe one of > these days he will notice me and we will ride off into the sunset > together as celibate 'lovers', which is a spiritual concept. I am > not giving up hope. That old Lupin guy never wanted me anyway. > lol. ;-) > > Tonks_op Prep0strus: Now this confused me a little bit. You're saying that you disagree with her saying he's gay because she's either outing him without his permission or she's outing a straight guy? I'm baffled, cause, it's just... he's fictional. And she created him. And not even like one could say God created us... he is actually a fictional creation, with no will or desires other than those given to him by a... real person. There are a lot of different opinions - I understand those who think that anything not in canon doesn't count, that readers can and will always put their self and their own opinions into characters in addition to and in spite of authorial intent, that it is possible to read the book still as DD being straight... But I don't think JKR can... go against the will of one of her characters. Dumbledore never told 'us' anything. HE never gave permission to watch his private moments with Harry, and neither did any other character 'allow' us into their private worlds. Now, whether or not JKR should have included his orientation in the books if she had a set opinion on it is one thing... but I don't think she can 'read into his lifestyle'. Anything in canon, she created. That lifestyle, SHE created. It is a lifestyle that does not have to be read as a straight or gay lifestyle. But if she 'always thought of Dumbledore as gay', well, then she's not reading into a third party's lifestyle the way the gossip pages do to celebrities... she's describing the person she had in mind as she created what she created. Your opinion of DD is valid from what is given in the text. No one can canon dispute that. But it's clear that JKR's opinion is valid as well, and can be read that way - she's not contradicting canon. She's describing her thought process behind what we see on the page. How much we choose as fans to internalize and accept in the books may be our choice, but... I was entirely bemused by the idea that somehow she and we were somehow invading DD's privacy. Cause... fictional. I think an author has a right to tell us anything she wants about a character she created. I'd prefer she do it in her writing, rather than in her publicity tours, but either way, he's just as fictional. Of course, at the end you're very amusing and it makes me wonder if perhaps the entire post wasn't a tongue in cheek comment on the whole sordid discussion, but it didn't read that way to me. If I'm misunderstanding, please, correct me, because I'm sitting here with a silly confused smile thinking... fictional. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 05:45:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:45:56 -0000 Subject: Harry, keep the wand you idiot! (was: A Flaw in the Plan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178382 "Carol" wrote: > I'm confused, too, and am only > speculating as to why DD wanted > Snape to keep the Elder Wand My theory is that Dumbledore really didn't want that wonderful wand's power to be lost to the world forever, and neither do I. Yes, anything that powerful will be a bit scary, but I think destroying such a magnificent thing would be a crime as well as an act of cowardice. As I said before, if I was Harry I would have kept the wand and I wouldn't have even needed to think about it longer than a heartbeat. And if I were JKR I would have let Harry keep the wand because it would make a better story. For once let the thing that has the potential to change the Status quo survive the end of the story! I know that breaks with convention, in these sort of stories the law says that the secret laboratory that contains the secret of life, the amazing invention that could change the world, the super genius, the land of the dinosaurs, all are required to blow up at the end leaving not a trace that they ever existed. Convention dictates that the destruction be so complete that it's imposable for the hero to convince anyone that the amazing thing (or person or place or book or idea) even existed at all; in fact it's so imposable that the hero doesn't even try to convince anyone that that he has seen something that could upset their comfortable little idea about how the world operated. If Harry had kept the wand it might have cast a slight cloud over the happy ending, but so be it. That wand has the potential to do great things (and remember Oleander said Harry as well as Voldemort had the potential to do great things) the wand is also a magnet for trouble, that's why if I were JKR in the epilog I'd have Harry walking with a slight limp and waving goodbye to his son with "his good hand". I'd give no explanation of exactly how Harry received those injuries, let the reader figure it out. Eggplant From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 05:58:26 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes /Re: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <520498.65864.qm@web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178383 --- eggplant107 wrote: > bamf Wrote: > > > I chalk his clothing choices up > to age, not sexual preference. > eggplant replied: > Dumbledore dressed flamboyantly when he was young > and when he was old. > bamf here: What we consider flamboyant now, may not have been so 150 years ago when DD was young (Victorian Era - everything was flamboyant then!) What fashions are popular when you are young are generally what you stick with when you are older. Part of it comes from differences in what is socially acceptable. IIRC, and no, I don't have backing for this nor do I have time to look for it, but I thought JKR said DD was 150. That would mean that he was growing up in the middle and at the end of the Victorian age, where rich, luxurious fabrics were fine for men to wear. This is what always came to my mind regarding his clothing. Not that he was gay. bamf, earlier: > > There are many ways she could have > > answered the question that was asked. > > A simple, "What do you think" would > > have sufficed. Heavens knows she gave > > us enough vague answers BEFORE the > > books came out. > eggplant: > And before the last book came out she said when the > series was > complete she looked forward to answering our > questions more fully. > When she was writing the books she thought of > Dumbledore as gay, are > you saying she should have forever kept that > information from us? > bamf: Actually, yes. Part of the fun of reading these books is figuring out what we, the readers, think the characters are like. I'd like her to answer more information on no, really, how many students attend Hogwarts, what did George do, why the crappy epilogue. Things that she left out there that we CAN'T figure out from what she wrote. Whether or not a character is gay - well, if the character is/was then she should have made it clear from her writing. It is a huge pet peeve of mine that an author drops a bombshell (for what else do you call it when the list explodes like that) with no hints of clues in the book? As I said in my original reply, I just took DD to be mysterious, eccentric and unique. Wasn't that enough? eggplant: > When the movie makers asked JKR to look over the > script for movie 6 > and it had something about Dumbledore getting hot > and heavy over a > pretty girl when he was young, should Rowling have > said nothing even > though it was contrary to the character she created? > If she told the > movie makers that Dumbledore was gay it was only a > matter of time > before the news leaked, JKR chose to announce it in > her own way. > bamf: Why is there even a scene with DD getting 'hot and heavy' over a girl in the movie? The fact is, his sexual preference has no bearing on the story. IF it did, she should have mentioned it more. Unless it's a twist of The Crying Game proportion, why even bother mentioning it? Why not let readers read into and take from it what they want, or why not mention it in the story? > Tonks Wrote: > > > Talk about stereotypes > eggplant: > The thing about stereotypes is that most of them > contain an element of > truth. To pretend that some gay men don't dress much > more flamboyantly > than straight men is not being realistic. I'm not > making a value > judgment (if someone wants to be flamboyant or gay > or both that's > their business not mine), I'm just making an > observation. > > Eggplant > bamf: And the problem with stereotypes is that they can be wrong just as often as they are right. I've been called a lesbian because I like traditionally male things and am not fond of shopping. (Hint: Just celebrated another anniversary with my husband.) My brother-in-law tells my sister what to wear as he has better taste in clothing. I know men that sew their own clothing. I know women that make armor. Yes, all these examples are of straight people. The few homosexuals I have known, acted more straight than my straight friends... There maybe a grain of truth in stereo types, but that doesn't mean you judge the whole beach on that one grain. bamf There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 06:15:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:15:32 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178384 "Bunny" wrote: > for one am very very disappointed > with Rowling 'outing' Dumbledore. JKR didn't out Dumbledore, for her to do that she would have had to mention somewhere in the books that he is gay, she didn't do that; all she did was tell us what was in her mind when she wrote about the character. If you want to continue to think of Dumbledore as a heterosexual character that is entirely your prerogative, the readers can think what they want about her characters and if JKR doesn't like that then that's just tough. But I find that for me a homosexual Dumbledore enriches the Grindelwald Dumbledore subplot and wonder why I never considered it before, however your mileage may vary. Eggplant From laurel_lei at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 04:50:33 2007 From: laurel_lei at yahoo.com (Laurel Lei) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:50:33 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178385 > Carol wrote: > Carol, who thinks that JKR has sidetracked us from the real > themes of the book with her imagined view of Dumbledore > > ***Katie : > I disagree. The real theme of the book - the *main* theme > of the book - is that bigotry is wrong and tolorance and > acceptance are right. > (snip) > I see Dumbledore's sexuality as simply a continuation of > what she (and I) saw as the theme of the books. >(snip) > Dumbledore's sexuality is only a distracting issue if > it's made into one. ***Laurel Lei***: I agree, Katie... please refer to Canon below. "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." -Albus Dumbledore, pg. 723, GoF -J.K. Rowling My two knuts... -Laurel Lei From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Oct 24 05:13:44 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:13:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. References: <351219.31870.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002301c815fc$a6679fd0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178386 > Snow: > If this author has succumbed to stereotyped tendencies, then I have to > wonder if she maintained the story that she always "claimed" to have been > devoted to write. Is the story you read in the last volume, the one you > expected? I personally feel uneasy about it. The last book felt > disconnected > to the whole. I didn't feel the heart that I felt with the other books > which > is why I have refrained from writing again till now. > > I totally enjoyed the books and the many people that I have had the > opportunity to meet and correspond with over the years through this forum. > I > have always been a proactive advocate for the author until now. I honestly > believed she would write the story she always intended, but after this > latest roust, I feel she may have been bought and sold at the political > market. Shelley now: Yes, that's exactly what I feel she's doing. She had this great story in her head, and the last book starts to diverge from it. Then, all the interviews following seem to diverge from it even further, and that's exactly what I see this gay comment as being, so much so that I don't consider it to be canon. I really wonder if this gay thought of hers is a new one- if indeed she just thought of it, but that it certainly wasn't anywhere in her mind when she planned out this series. It would explain why it feels so disconnected from the series. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bunny" wrote: > I for one am very very disappointed with Rowling 'outing' > Dumbledore. I fully intended re-reading the books many > more times and reading them to my grandchildren. However, to > me, this has put a completely different complexion on the > series and I don't think I'll be able to open the books again. > I'll be imagining homosexual connotations in everything > Dumbledore says or does something. Shelley: Nods totally in agreement. It's just like everything else she said in interviews- that one would use magic late in life, or ones that got a reprieve or ones that would die, or whom would grow up to be a teacher- didn't we all reread the series to find the clues to whom it would be? There's just no way to just reread and "ignore" what has been announced from the lips of Rowling herself. I understand that DD will always be who I want him to be, but I fully agree that this revelation has tainted the series for me, and already I hear talk on other lists of people who are deciding that their younger children won't be reading the series because of this announcement, as that's what people are now thinking this series is about (for those who haven't read it fully so far). Even if you know that it's not, like you said, you will reread passages with a different frame of mind this next time around because your information base is different. There's just no way not to. I surely don't have a magic eraser for my brain to clean up things I wish I hadn't heard. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 06:54:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:54:41 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, There is a gay ...) In-Reply-To: <520498.65864.qm@web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178387 --- Metylda wrote: > > > --- eggplant107 wrote: > > ... > > > > eggplant: > > ... > > When she was writing the books she thought of > > Dumbledore as gay, are > > you saying she should have forever kept that > > information from us? > > > > bamf: > > Actually, yes. Part of the fun of reading these books > is figuring out what we, the readers, think the > characters are like. > > I'd like her to answer more information on no, really, > how many students attend Hogwarts, what did George do, > why the crappy epilogue. Things that she left out > there that we CAN'T figure out from what she wrote. > Whether or not a character is gay - ... bboyminn: But here's the thing, JKR didn't just spontaneously burst out with the idea that Dumbledore is gay. She was responding to a direct question about Dumbledore's love life. He asked; she answered. I have a philosophy in life that says, 'don't ask questions you aren't prepared to hear the answer to'. If people don't want to know about Dumbledore's love life, then they shouldn't ask questions about it, and when they get the answer, they shouldn't complain because they don't like the answer they hear. Seems simple enough to me. Steve/bboyminn From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 09:59:38 2007 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:59:38 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: <445840.90570.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178388 > > Alla: > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite > > and least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. > ***Katie: > My favorite character (at the moment) is Neville. My favorite > moment for Neville is his entire story arc in DH. Hi Everybody Ever since I've read the first book, I knew this character was going to be one the most interesting to watch. Everything about him was interesting and the more that was revealed the more I wanted to know more. I love Neville, he's the Ugly Duckling that finally came into his own. My least favorite moment was really hard to decide. They are those moments that don't show him in a favorable light. Those quintesential moments that make Neville, Neville. For example, Losing the list of passwords (3), his forgetful memory, his fear of Snape, his ineptitude for anything other than herbology. In saying that, I think my favorite Neville Moment was "Neville at the Battle of Hogwarts" from the moment he stepped out of the portrait to the very end. Here we see exactly how far he has come, mostly thanks to the DA. We see him leading a resistance, setting an example, standing up for his convictions. The only thing I don't understand is having done all that, why settle for a teaching position, and why Herbology. Why not an Auror? Why not DADA? The only thing I can think is his conviction was for defeating Bellatrix and Voldemort, and with them gone, so went his drive for vengence. Neville is now healed and able to move on to his first passion. I think Neville is a great character and probably one the best developed secondary characters. He's probably one the things I looked forward to when reading each book. KimberleyElizabeth From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 11:20:09 2007 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:20:09 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178389 > Amanda: > Since I started to re read the books from the begining, I have > noticed something. She gives a brief glimpse that maybe Severus > Snape was not exactly who we thought him to be. > I feel bad that I was so slow to pick this up, but I feel that > Snape was given a bad rep. Some of her thoughts seemed a little > different when it came to the slytherins also. She puts almost > as much time into making Snape evil as Malfoy and it is sad, > considering he really was one of the good guys. I think we are forgetting that Snape was a DeathEater. With all the passions and convictions that all DeathEaters have. His love for Lily, his unendurable pain of losing her, and siding with DD in saving Harry for her were the only things that saves him from being as lothesome as any other DeathEater. Yet these things that make him heroic and brave (a Gryffindor)are there for Lily but sadly do not really change him from being prejudicial and evil ( a Slytherin). This maybe hard to hear but Snape is not a good guy. I agree that POV and Plot had alot to do with Snape seemingly so dark. Harry was told at this sorting "That there wasn't a witch or wizard that didn't go bad in Slytherin". This coupled with Snape's obvious dislike for Harry, pretty much sealed a dark image forever in Harry POV and then made worse as the story continues into years 2.3.4.... I was a little disappointed at Harry's reaction when he learned all of Snape's secrets. I have to say it was something I suspected since book 3. I wanted to read some kind of shock or denial once Harry found out. But there was nothing just acceptance. Kimberley From bunnyc at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 24 11:47:13 2007 From: bunnyc at optusnet.com.au (Bunny) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:47:13 +1000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes Message-ID: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> No: HPFGUIDX 178390 I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why JK Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and to many religions, is totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response in India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and her books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many cultures and she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of this. It's too late now but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would have been best for everyone. Bunny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 11:55:27 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> Message-ID: <383887.9207.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178391 Bunny wrote: I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why JK Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and to many religions, is totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response in India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and her books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many cultures and she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of this. It's too late now but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would have been best for everyone. Bunny ***Katie: So, because many people have an opinion, that makes it ok? I'm sorry, but intolorance is never acceptable, even if many people feel that way. JKR has said that she wrote these books as a story about tolorance, acceptance, and love. That being said, I am quite certain that JKR doesn't care if intolorant people are offended by Dumbledore's being gay, anymore than she would care about people who didn't want to read the books because there's interracial dating (Harry/Cho, Dean/Ginny). JKR wanted to promote a message of love and acceptance, so if certain people can no longer accept the books and the message because Dumbledore is gay...well, I would say that is their loss, not JKR's. I, for one, while supporting gay rights, don't CARE if Dumbledore is gay or straight. It has no bearing on the story nor on his place in it. He never dated anyone in the course of the books. His whole purpose was to nurture Harry and bring down Voldemort, and he did that. His sexuality has nothing to do with anything. 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 jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 12:33:51 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:33:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> References: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710240533t7a0ea9bfu3718eaf8751058e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178392 On 10/24/07, Bunny wrote: > > I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why JK > Rowling 'outed' > Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and to > many religions, is > totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response in > India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and her > books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many cultures and > she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of this. It's too late now > but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would have been best for everyone. montims: Slavery, in many countries and to many religions, was totally unacceptable and offensive, and yet the United States still practiced it, and it took a war (and books like Uncle Tom's Cabin...) to make them give that up, but now most people in America accept that slavery is wrong. Maybe this will help other countries and religions accept that condemning a perfectly normal impulse as sinful or disgusting is also plain wrong. By the way - "best for everyone"? Everyone??? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 12:48:27 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:48:27 -0000 Subject: Neville/ Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kimberleyelizabeth" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite > > > and least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. > > > ***Katie: > > My favorite character (at the moment) is Neville. My favorite > > moment for Neville is his entire story arc in DH. > > KimberlyElizabeth wrote: > > <<>> The only thing I don't understand > is having done all that, why settle for a teaching position, > and why Herbology. Why not an Auror? Why not DADA? The only > thing I can think is his conviction was for defeating Bellatrix > and Voldemort, and with them gone, so went his drive for > vengence. Neville is now healed and able to move on to his > first passion. <<>> KimberleyElizabeth ***Katie again: I think you're absolutely right. Neville wasn't a natural fighter like HRH. He was brave, no question, but this wasn't his first choice. He was the person who said, "Ok, I have to fight, so I will." He became so heroic, but it wasn't because that was the life he wanted to live. I see Neville sort of like the people in Germany and Poland who help Jews escape or hid them during WWII, but then went back to their normal lives when the war was over. Neville's fight was over when Voldemort and Bella were gone. He was able to move on. And whether he married Luna (I hope) or Hannah, or whoever JKR decides to have him marry in her next interview (LOL), I hope his life was a long, happy, and peaceful one. He deserves that. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 12:49:45 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:49:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> References: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> Message-ID: <8ee758b40710240549u62a8b9dfg5d4b02761342601c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178394 On 10/23/07, Bunny wrote: > > Everyone has an opinion on this and nobody is going to change anyone > elses mind, so why > bother? I for one am very very disappointed with Rowling 'outing' > Dumbledore. > I can't for the life of me see what it achieved and I feel it would have > been > best for her to have kept her mouth shut. This series started as a > children's story > which caught on with adults and I thoroughly enjoyed the many years we > spent discussing and debating it and the anguish of waiting for the next > book. I fully intended re-reading the books many more times > and reading them to my grandchildren. However, to me, this has put a > completely different complextion on the series and I don't think I'll be > able to open the books again. I'll be imagining > homosexual connotations in everything Dumbledore says or does something. > No, I'm not a prude, but God invented Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, > and I don't see > why homosexuality should be thrust in our faces. Children these days have > a hard enough life... > let them be children for as long as we can. > OK, go ahead and tear me to shreds, but that's how I feel. > Bunny montims: I would say reread your bible - if your God invented only Adam and Eve, then where did Steve come from? If you believe that God created everyone in his image, why are there so many different types? I think in Christianity Jesus superceded the Old Testament God anyway, with his message of tolerance, didn't he? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From KLMF at aol.com Wed Oct 24 13:31:00 2007 From: KLMF at aol.com (klmf1) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:31:00 -0000 Subject: DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178395 If we got back to the original quote that started all this trouble, JKR stated she had always "thought of DD as gay". That does not actually MAKE him gay, only how JKR* thought* of him. Don't we all know folks who we tend to think of as gay, even ones who are apparently or turn out to be *not*? The reverse is also true. Like another poster stated, the hints are there if you *want* to find them. Yah, I picked up on a lot of sexual innuendo all along the series, but I guess I must be naive as I chose to take them, instead, at face value, as if I was, well, viewing it from Harry's POV. I can't believe I'm the only person on the planet who looked upon DD's character as something akin to a Jedi? In fact, he always struck me as something like a wizarding Obi Wan Kenobi. Jedis are supposed to live like a sort of warrior monk...fight for good, but avoid social entanglements, and remain celibate. We are never told or even implied who amongst the Jedi are straight and who are gay. It wouldn't have mattered in that plot line, and it doesn't in this one, either. My original impression of DD was that something tragic happened to him some time in his life, likely the death of a loved one, to push him in this Jedi-like direction---to fight for good and to keep people at arm's length lest he endanger them (or he suffer another loss). He was asexual in *my* mind, celibate by choice, and he remains so. His sexual orientation to me doesn't change any of that. It's not far-fetched for a young man to have *no* apparent love interest at 17, in any era. I only ever saw his relationship with GG to be one of intellectual solidarity, as was described in the text, nothing more, and I still do (and I would even if GG was female---platonic relationships do exist, after all. Just look at Harry and Hermione). No one else knew anything more, why should we? The death of his sister and the way she died only confirmed my suspicions of DD having suffered a great loss at some point although I envisioned it much later than that. Never once did DD sexual orientation come into my thoughts other than my wondering about the nature of his and MacGonagall's relationship. His sexual orientation was not important to the plot. His relationship with MacGonagall may well have been, *whatever* it was, but JKR never elaborated on that, either. For that matter, we still know very little about the past of most of the teachers at Hogwarts--we know *nothing* about MacGonagall's past and her private life, and she was a prominent character. They may all be gay. None of them are, as far as we know, married, after all. If someone wants to envision them all as gay, well, they may do that. If they want to believe them all straight, they may do that. If they see some as possibly gay, and some possibly not, that would be fine, too! Does any of it *really* matter to the story? While I can appreciate gay readers wanting a character they can relate to in the series, or have a more representative balance of gays and straights in the story, but to have an openly gay character in a book likely to be read by children would be simply too distracting and add nothing to the plot. It would be just another point for the anti-HP crowd to grab on to, for instance. There is *ample* room in the series for people to read in *their own* conclusions. We are free to envision that Crab and Goyle were an item, or that Bellatrix and Voldemort were into the rough stuff. Knowing it in canon would have no bearing on Harry or the plot line and only serve to distract. Yes, there is pairing off in the story, but only as it relates to Harry either directly or indirectly. Everything was written in Harry's POV. As for gay relationships "always" being so tragic, tragic romances are a plotline mainstay regardless of sexual orientation. What's more, few people can ever say for the entirety of their lives that they never suffered any kind of tragedy. Gays do not own tragedy, not even in Hollywood. Tragedies are turning points in people's lives and make for good stories. It doesn't matter what a person's orientation is, or that sex even has to come into play for there to be tragedy. Heck, Harry's life was loaded with tragedy that had nothing to do with sex or romance. His first and biggest tragedy began with the prophecy. And, IMO, there was nothing particularly tragic about DD wrt his sexual orientation. He was an admirable person and sacrificed himself for the benefit of all. What does his implied sexual orientation have to do with that? As for my own feeling about JKR's thoughts, I do wish nothing was said about DD's possible sexual orientation, and regret very much the way JKR's statement has been blow out of proportion by all sides. On the other hand, it must have been very hard to keep these details secret for over 10 years. JKR is probably just so relieved to be able to speak about characters and backstories that it's frankly hard for her to NOT talk about it. I will forgive her her indescretions however much I may regret hearing them. I also can't fault her for changing her mind on backstory. As an artist there is very little work *I* have finished that I can't see things that I wish I'd have done differently. I continue to play out alternate directions in my mind long, long after the work is "finished". Everything can be tweaked and re-tweaked, even until it's but a shadow of it's former self, if such a thing is allowed. I am only a lurker most of the time---but I would like to say let's please allow and forgive JKR's being a flawed human being (like the rest of us!) who created a fantastically popular work, stop assuming to know what she's thinking, and let this matter rest! Karen F From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Oct 24 13:43:14 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:43:14 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178396 Marianne: > Me, too. And I see this in a completely different light. I think > this could also be seen as Lupin realizing he has again fallen into > the pattern he's always shown, which is to allow himself to do what > makes other people happy, not necessarily what he wants or thinks > is the right thing to do. Tonks practically lassoed him in the > Hospital scene in HBP, and everyone else stood around, taking her > side, and telling Remus basically that the way he felt or thought > was wrong, that Tonks's feelings were right. She loved him, and he > was bound to accept that and sail off into the sunset with her, > only later allowing himself to voice his real feelings, that the > whole thing was a dreadful mistake. Dana: Sure it is one way of reading it but then he apparently fell right back into it after Harry yelled at him, right? He still went back to Tonks before the baby was born and stated for the record that Harry was right and that he should never have left in the first place. Besides babies do not spring out of nowhere so if he really had his doubts about the relationship, enough to hold it off at first, why did he let himself be persuaded to have sex with Tonks in the first place? I doubt that there was a crowd cheering him on to consummate his relationship with Tonks. Besides I do not think that JKR went for the idea that love is something that you can be talked into if you actually do not want to or that she had her epitomes of righteousness (Molly and Arthur) to persuade Remus into loving Tonks if he had never given any indication of their being mutual feelings. Everything they do is right and therefore I do not think that JKR showing Remus having difficulty accepting his own role as husband and father, to be a reflection on Remus's lack of feelings for Tonks. To be honest, I actually think Remus going back to Tonks was meant to indicate that he had come to terms with his own position and embracing both the role of husband and father. To me, it was supposed to be an indication that Remus finally had the courage to not let his lycanthropy get in the way as he had done so many times before. His personal weaknesses have always been directly related to his affliction of being a werewolf and, to me, Remus going back to Tonks was actually an indication that for once in his life it was not the predominant factor for his actions. Everything that is shown of why Remus had his doubts was directly related to his "furry" problem and nothing to do with his personal feelings for Tonks herself. Every single thing we see him utter is about how him being a werewolf, would have a possible negative effect on Tonks, due to her marring a werewolf, and the implications it might bring for their baby. For instance at Harry's birthday this happens when it is announced that the Minister for Magic is on his way; Chapter 7 "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" >"We shouldn't be here," said Lupin at once. "Harry?I'm sorry?I'll explain another time?" He seized Tonks's wrist and pulled her away; the reached the fence, climbed over it, and vanished from sight. Mrs. Weasley looked bewildered.< After this announcement he immediately grabs Tonks and heads on out. He doesn't want other people to be associated with him when the social climate against half-breeds has become increasingly more hostile. He no longer wants to be a burden to anyone and get's out as fast as he possibly can (Taking Tonks with him). Chapter 11 "The Bribe" >"Don't you understand what I've done to my wife and my unborn child? I should never have married her, I've made her an outcast!" *** You don't know how most of the Wizarding world sees creatures like me! When they know of my affliction, they can barely talk to me! Don't you see what I've done? Even her own family is disgusted by our marriage, when parents want their only daughter to marry a werewolf? And the child?the child?" *** "My kind don't usually breed! It will be like me, I am convinced of it?how can I forgive myself when I knowingly risked passing on my own condition to an innocent child? And if, by some miracle, it is not like me, then it will be better off, a hundred times so, without a father of whom it must always be ashamed!"< Nothing Remus says here has any baring on his personal feelings for Tonks. Everything he actually says is in direct relation to his lycanthropy, the social implications of this affliction and the difficulties it brings or might bring for his wife and his unborn child. It is all about the lack of social acceptance they might endure because of what HE IS and that he even feels that it has caused a riffed between her and her parents due to her marrying a werewolf. He never so much states that his marriage was a mistake because he let himself be talked into it or that he did not actually love Tonks all that much. If that was really his point of hesitation or doubt then he actually still didn't speak his mind about his feelings now did he? To me, this screams that he actually loves her so much that he feels selfish for allowing her to get close to him because his affliction will surely ruin both her and their unborn child's life. That is was wrong for him to love anyone in this way because it will only bring them the misfortune and unhappiness he has known his whole life. He feels it is for their best interest if he disappears so that they do not have to face the consequences of being associated on such a personal level with a werewolf. He hopes to achieve that Tonks will just deny his existence by walking out on her and that it will save them both (Tonks and baby) from the public shame they are bound to endure because of him. Remus still eliminates himself from playing an active part in the relationships (romantic and none-romantic alike) he has by trying to make himself invisible and ignoring the responsibilities he himself has in his connection to others. He not only denies himself a full life but he denies himself to others as well. He could have provided more balance to the marauders dynamic and if he had spoken out more freely he probably would never have been excluded so profoundly in the end and it would have actually prevented both his own personal anguish and that of a close friend(s). Tonks marriage to him was already public knowledge so eliminating himself would not have any real baring on Tonks social status and instead of thinking that together they could face whatever is thrown at them, he depends on others to actually protect what is his to protect. In all these cases the inability to embrace himself, has actually caused more heartache then his behavior was supposed to prevent and I whole heartily believe that JKR meant for Remus to realize this after his fallout with Harry and why he eventually went back to Tonks. Not because he couldn't be a good father any other way then pretending to be happily married but because he truly realized that he himself could only be happy if he for once in his life stopped letting other people's opinions about him be the course of his actions. So in other words that it mattered not what the rest of the world might or might not think of him or about the people who wanted to be associated with him. It was okay for him to acknowledge both his wife and his own son and to be proud to be a husband and dad regardless of anything else he might be. And although I totally agree that his relationship with Tonks was not well written, I think the problems we see him go through were less about his romantic relationship but more about the perceptions he had about himself in relation to his lycanthropy. It was about Remus finally accepting that he is not just merely a werewolf but also a human being and that by allowing himself to be a husband and dad that he embraced both in harmony. By denying one he actually denied both. Just my two cents and humble opinion of course. Dana From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Oct 24 13:54:25 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:54:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes. References: <001a01c815e4$eb6d3a30$dd6d693a@winxp> <8ee758b40710240549u62a8b9dfg5d4b02761342601c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003401c81645$6510bf50$2d01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 178397 ----- Original Message ----- From: Janette To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no/yes. On 10/23/07, Bunny wrote: > > No, I'm not a prude, but God invented Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, > and I don't see > why homosexuality should be thrust in our faces. Children these days have > a hard enough life... > let them be children for as long as we can. > OK, go ahead and tear me to shreds, but that's how I feel. > Bunny montims: I would say reread your bible - if your God invented only Adam and Eve, then where did Steve come from? If you believe that God created everyone in his image, why are there so many different types? I think in Christianity Jesus superceded the Old Testament God anyway, with his message of tolerance, didn't he? Kimberly here: Firstly, this isn't canon but I have to put my .2 in. We are given free will by God. He created us each individually, with intent and free-will. The choices we make, the things we do, the people we become (and I'm not just referring to our preference in partners) are not always going to line up with what God had in mind for us. Our free-will sometimes takes us a different direction. If someone believes that "Adam and Steve" are wrong, then they will say that Steve, while created individually from God, he was not created as an intended partner for Adam. "Adam and Steve's" free-will put them together, even though it may have not been God's plan for them. Also, Jesus didn't override what the Old Testament said, he fulfilled it. I apologize in advance for posting this off canon message. Kimberly From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Oct 24 13:40:23 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:40:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes /Re: I am so happy, There is a gay couple in canon after all. References: <520498.65864.qm@web31502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c81643$6ded7e80$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178398 >> bamf Wrote: >> > I chalk his clothing choices up to age, not sexual preference. >> > eggplant replied: >> Dumbledore dressed flamboyantly when he was young and when he was old. > bamf here: > What we consider flamboyant now, may not have been so 150 years ago when > DD was young (Victorian Era - > everything was flamboyant then!) What fashions are popular when you are > young are generally what you > stick with when you are older. Part of it comes from differences in what > is socially acceptable. Shelley: I had a totally different take on Dumbledore's flamboyant clothing- I just attributed it to Rowling explaining the difference between Wizards and Muggles. I assumed, by way of backstory, that when the Wizards were still mingling with the Muggles on a daily basis, that they had to blend in and look the same as to not draw attention to themselves. Then when they enacted the Statutes of Secrecy that they were free to be themselves, and that's when the pointy hats, robes and flashy colors all came into being. It's clear from the World Cup Quidditch scene that most Witches and Wizards have no clue how today's Muggles dress (I keep hearing that line from the guy wearing a woman's nightgown "I like a healthy breeze round my privates, thank you). A Muggle man clearly prefers to wear underwear and pants, but is a female nightgown "odd" for a Wizard, or just closer to what he would have normally worn, and thus comfortable? I think the latter. Thus I see Dumbledore's clothing as not so unusual- even Rita Skeeter is described as dressing flashy, and I think those flashy colors and styles are just an indicative of someone who keeps up with the current Wizard fashion of the day. God only knows what the Wizards would have thought of Disco outfits or the Vietnam protesters- probably the same reaction that Vernon had when he kept seeing all those Wizards in broad daylight and wondered if they were going to a convention- that there has to be some reasonable explanation for that odd dress pattern. I always saw DD's clothing as at the height of style, no matter his age or when he dressed, that he was considered to be a good dresser for a Wizard. So, I neither attributed his clothing due to age (he always wore the current style), nor to any sexual preference (he looked like every other well-dressed wizard), nor to being out of date (see the first). Another example of good dressing- look what the twins started wearing when they got some money and were able to afford to be dressed in popular styles. That's another thing with DD's dress- I also assumed that it meant that he was financially well off to be able to afford the latest styles in more expensive clothing- that his clothing marked his status symbol of being someone in a powerful position with wealth. (As opposed to the Weasleys- whose clothing reflected their poverty or struggle to feed and cloth everyone.) > I'd like her to answer more information on no, really, > how many students attend Hogwarts, what did George do, > why the crappy epilogue. Things that she left out > there that we CAN'T figure out from what she wrote. > Whether or not a character is gay - well, if the > character is/was then she should have made it clear > from her writing. It is a huge pet peeve of mine that > an author drops a bombshell (for what else do you call > it when the list explodes like that) with no hints of > clues in the book? As I said in my original reply, I > just took DD to be mysterious, eccentric and unique. > Wasn't that enough? Shelley: You have a very strong point there. If DD was gay, then it should have been part of the story, part of the writing, for it would color our guesses and predictions about what was to come. It would be only fair to all the readers to have something that pervasive and defining of a person to be part of his backstory written in print. And I agree that any future information she should give us should be the types of things that we couldn't get from the books- like did the students finally complete their education at Hogwarts after the castle was rebuilt, and things like that. Bombshell is an understatement- more than this list has exploded over her revelation- it's causing waves of discussion like this on multiple discussion sites, many of them not related to Harry Potter at all, as people figure out if they want their kids reading this series if it has a gay character. It's exploding the parenting lists I am on, for it's a big question for many parents of how, when, and in what manner we bring up sex talks with our children, or other adult issues such as homosexuality, and Rowling has forced that discussion to happen now for many parents just because the kids are into Harry Potter and have heard the news. This list is for adults, it's a big deal for us, but it's an even bigger deal when your 8 year old asks what it means that DD is gay, and you have to explain what that entails. > bamf: > Why is there even a scene with DD getting 'hot and heavy' over a girl in > the movie? Shelley: Good question!!! I know that we are not supposed to discuss the "other medium" on this list, but I just wanted to say that revelation made me seriously wonder just what other distortions were going to be in that next movie. Frankly, showing DD eyeing up a guy in his youth to me would just be another distortion of the books, because we don't get to see in canon DD having a relationship with ANYBODY, and that's just the way that it should be presented in all future discussions or works related to these books. I would be highly disappointed if people start making products or things that reflect Rowling's interview revelations, unless you count fanfiction, which always has the liberty (as it should be, because it's fanFICTION) of playing loose and free with the facts for the sake of writing the story. Getting back to what's relevant to this list (so the list elves do not yell at me)- I just wonder about the future of the Harry Potter fandom- if we are seeing the split happen right here- with those who will read the books, and only the books for canon, and those that will take all those "other" sources of information into account and consider that to be canon too? I hope not, but I just see the level of impact this statement has had, and seriously wonder if people who want nothing to do with DD being gay will just have to stick to that first position that the interviews are not canon, and therefore irrelevant to their enjoyment of the Harry Potter series, just so they can keep reading them in good conscience. At the risk of straying again off list-approved subjects, I will talk of Traveller for a second. (It's relevant, I promise!) It's a roll playing game, and as a way of accomodating all the different ways that laws and the ways the Universe could be configured, the players have developed a saying. It goes like this "Not in my Traveller Universe". It allows people to have different views about drugs, prostitution, and setups of governments and laws, psionics and other controversial subjects, so that when they each have their own universe, they don't have to worry about someone else's rules conflicting with theirs, and thus all the fans from a wide variety of views peacefully co-exist in harmony under this one rule. I wonder if the future of the Harry Potter fandom will go that way- for the sake of the love of Harry Potter if we will develop the saying "Not in my Harry Potter World" to accomodate those who want to keep DD as merely "mysterious, eccentric and unique", as he was described in the books and those who want to keep the now gay DD that Rowling described in the interview. If we do, then roll playing games and other future spin offs of this series could accomodate a wide variety of differences, from house elf freedoms and treatment of sentient creatures (Centaurs and the giants), to the new set up of the Ministry of Magic, to the continuation of villans and Death Eaters or the new era of peace (which should have problems of it's own to make the roll playing game or fanfiction fun), or even accomodate those who loved the books but totally hated the epilogue and just want to pretend that it didn't happen. In "Not in my HP World", we could all continue to start with the 7 book series, and then branch off from there to each enjoy our own version of what it fully looks like in detail. From paula_hall at verizon.net Wed Oct 24 12:30:30 2007 From: paula_hall at verizon.net (Paula) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:30:30 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <383887.9207.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178399 Katie: I, for one, while supporting gay rights, don't CARE if Dumbledore is gay or straight. It has no bearing on the story nor on his place in it. He never dated anyone in the course of the books. His whole purpose was to nurture Harry and bring down Voldemort, and he did that. His sexuality has nothing to do with anything. bboyminn: But here's the thing, JKR didn't just spontaneously burst out with the idea that Dumbledore is gay. She was responding to a direct question about Dumbledore's love life. He asked; she answered. Me (Paula): Mostly just a lurker, but want to note the following, or re-emphasize it if it's been said by others. The real canon import of the answer to the question posed to JKR is the the relationship between Gellert and Albus. That is, she might have answered the question by saying simply that Albus was in his youth in love with Gellert, without saying anything more. In that case, we would all be here still talking about how that statement shows that Albus is gay, or some might say this relationship says nothing about Albus's sexual preferences as a whole (because sometimes teenaged crushes are not dispositive on the subject of one's actual sexual preferences); but I also think the discussions would not lose fact of the significance of this single relationship in Albus's life to the whole story, which is: how this relationship affected Albus's (delayed) response to Gellert's evil actions and how it shaped his thoughts on love and power as an adult. This relationship is the true canon news; this relationship explains a lot. Why JKR chose to say first that Albus was gay and then that he was in love with Gellert might arguably lead to interesting insights about how and why she wrote the series as she did, but from a pure story/canon point of view, the important thing is the fact of the Gellert/Albus relationship. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Oct 24 14:09:21 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:09:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, There is a gay ...) References: Message-ID: <002f01c81647$79db3f80$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178400 > bboyminn: > But here's the thing, JKR didn't just spontaneously burst out with the > idea that Dumbledore is gay. She was responding to > a direct question about Dumbledore's love life. He asked; she answered. > > I have a philosophy in life that says, 'don't ask questions you aren't > prepared to hear the answer to'. > > If people don't want to know about Dumbledore's love life, then they > shouldn't ask questions about it, and when they > get the answer, they shouldn't complain because they don't like the answer > they hear. > > Seems simple enough to me. > > Steve/bboyminn Shelley: It seems to me that she took the opportunity to go much further with her answer than she could have, and this has been brought up before. The asker didn't ask about DD's sexual orientation- he/she asked whether DD had loved. Those are two different levels of questions, in my mind. She could have answered that truthfully and fully without going into the sexual orientation area at all by saying "yes, and it went badly for him". Now, if at a further point someone asked the more detailed question- "With WHOM did DD have a relationship with?"- that one could have been answered directly with "Grindewald" and thus DD's orientation at that moment in time would have been revealed. But I dispute your claim that she was merely answering the question that was presented to her- she took the liberty to introduce the sexual orientation part; she didn't merely answer the question with a "yes" when asked if DD had loved anyone. Thus your dig into people who are complaining because they heard an answer that they didn't want to hear is a little misguided- no one was asking whether DD was straight or gay. I don't think people would be so upset with her if that had been the real question that was asked of her the night she said this, if the readers themselves had come to the conclusion that DD might have been gay, and was merely asking for her to clarify. The question about "love" was a much more basic and simple one- one that a small child could ask and be answered without straying into any adult subjects. She didn't choose to stay with an answer that was basic and simple, and that's where we are finding fault with her- in the level of detail of the answer that didn't need to be gone into. I am reminded painfully that there are kids that read this series. When my young child asks me how the baby got into my tummy, it's up to me to use judgment and wisdom to know the level of detail in which to answer. It's up to me to know how much they are ready for, and not to give them more than they are really asking. This question was just such a basic, beginner level question- did DD love anyone- and Rowling chose to give us much more than we really were ready to hear. That is not our fault- we were not asking about DD's sexual orientation, any more than most kids who first ask that baby question are asking about the details of sexual intercourse. The question wasn't a detailed one, it was a basic one. That's what makes this answer so shocking and outrageous, imho. I agree that she answered it poorly and without thinking of what the consequences would be to her fandom that involves kids and people who would be offended by such a revelation. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 14:20:32 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:20:32 -0000 Subject: Mugglenet's Article about DD Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178401 A link to a new article about DD's "outing". It's a good overall defense of JKR and the whole thing. http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/opinion2/defence.shtml From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 24 14:27:29 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:27:29 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Everyone needs to read this! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178402 Yesterday an ADMIN was issued. We expect every member of HPfGU to read and comply with this ADMIN. Keep your posts on topic, make canon points and be courteous in your disagreements! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178362 Remember, members are not being asked to avoid the topic of homosexuality (or any topic). However, if a post makes no canon point, it MUST be taken to our sister list, Off-Topic Chatter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ The List Elves From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 24 14:34:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:34:00 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178403 Bunny: > I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why JK Rowling 'outed' > Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and to many religions, is > totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response in India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and her books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many cultures and she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of this. It's too late now but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would have been best for everyone. Magpie: While it might be "best for some people" if she'd never suggested Dumbledore could be gay, there are other people think it's "best" that she said it because they appreciate having a character they love be gay (though perhaps they'd have thought it really best if she'd put a gay character in the books). Gay people are people too, after all. They're not automatically cut out of "everyone" because they're a minority. But if people think that everybody should keep gay characters out of their books--indeed, even not even suggest outside of the books that a character could be gay because nobody should be reminded they exist (apparently this is "shoving them in our face"), then I think it's far more for the best that she said it. Why should she be protecting someone else's desire to believe that gay people shouldn't exist if she doesn't agree with it? If she angered Indians who think being gay is unacceptable and offensive, she probably also pleased Indians who think it's acceptable not offensive--and are living with other people who think so. Aren't "hostile outpourings" themselves an explanation of why she might want to have this out there? I thought her books were supposed to be taking a stand against exactly that kind of hostile outpouring towards groups of people just because of who they are? Honestly, the entitlement just baffles me. Gay people exist. Some of them are brilliant, some of them are headmasters, some of them are English. Why one earth should anyone think they have less reason to be represented than any other type of person? I can completely understand and respect just not liking a revelation about a character. I wish she'd stop talking about any of this stuff. I just don't put it on some higher level than being angry at her sinking Draco/Hermione. I understand that some people have different views than I do on gay people, and think that this kind of sexual orientation is something that has to be broken to kids gently when their older or just hidden indefinitely the way you'd hide unpleasant things like evil or death or abuse (oops, those are in the books), but to me it's like randomly suggesting that a perfectly ordinary group of people in society be hidden or treated differently as if they've done something wrong because someone else doesn't approve of them--even if the person writing the book doesn't agree. And I think that's needlessly hurtful to those people and harmful to society. I don't think a gay couple brings up explicit sexual issues to a child who doesn't know about sex any more than a straight couple does. It may be more complicated to explain things like where the children come from (ornot), but I don't think that makes it necessarily more adult. The children of gay parents aren't any more privvy to their parents sex lives than the children of straight parents. There are aspects to being gay that children can't understand until their older (the political disagreement, religious objections, aspects of sex in general) but there's plenty important to them they can understand. JKR can hardly write the books to conform to every culture of the world at once. So the lesson I take away from "some people are now refusing to read the books or won't let their kids read them because they heard the author thinks one of the characters is gay off-page" is not that JKR screwed up by keeping people from reading her books, it's that that kind of attitude makes the lives of those who have it less joyful. They've shut themselves out of something they enjoy because what is to me needless prejudice was more important to them. There are beliefs that other people have that I don't approve of. If I decide not to read a book because of that that's my choice, and I wouldn't expect the author to court me. There's lots of people who don't like Harry Potter for all sorts of principles. KarenF: While I can appreciate gay readers wanting a character they can relate to in the series, or have a more representative balance of gays and straights in the story, but to have an openly gay character in a book likely to be read by children would be simply too distracting and add nothing to the plot. Magpie: Would it really? It just surprises me that in a book filled with magic, dragons, goblins and Dark Lords taking over the world something as ordinary as a gay character is "too distracting." I thought DH was deadly dull, but even I find Harry's getting the Sword of Gryffindor more exciting than the fact that one of the many relationships in the book included romantic interest from one man to another. Or that Harry had conversed with a gay man more than once. This just doesn't seem like something that clashes with what's there in the least. She can include a nudge-nudge joke about man/goat love. I'm not saying JKR must put gay characters or any type of characters in her story. And as I said, I understand not liking her throwing out information on the books this way in general. I'm just saying that a romantic aspect to Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is no more or less part of the plot than any number for romantic relationships in canon if you don't have special rules for gay people. And I would say the same thing for Harry simply noticing a same-sex couple amongst all the straight couples in a scene where he's looking at the student body. Other writers have included gay characters in fantasy stories without it taking over the plot. Shelley: I wonder if the future of the Harry Potter fandom will go that way- for the sake of the love of Harry Potter if we will develop the saying "Not in my Harry Potter World" to accomodate those who want to keep DD as merely "mysterious, eccentric and unique", as he was described in the books and those who want to keep the now gay DD that Rowling described in the interview. Magpie: Sure. I think we already have that. There's lots of things JKR's said that don't exist in my universe. If somebody would rather have Neville do something other than marry Hannah etc. I think they should be free to do that, and free to make Dumbledore straight as well. None of these things are in the books so there's little reason to force yourself to make it your personal canon. Even JKR gives herself that freedom--she didn't feel she had to make Hermione's middle name Jane because that's what it had been in her head until then. I just don't consider wanting Straight!Dumbledore any more special than wanting Neville/Luna or Harry/Draco or a Ron who ditches auror training and winds up with his own Wizarding Wireless radio show. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 14:59:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:59:49 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178404 > > Amanda: > > I feel bad that I was so slow to pick this up, but I feel that > > Snape was given a bad rep. Some of her thoughts seemed a little > > different when it came to the slytherins also. She puts almost > > as much time into making Snape evil as Malfoy and it is sad, > > considering he really was one of the good guys. > Kimberley: > I think we are forgetting that Snape was a DeathEater. With all > the passions and convictions that all DeathEaters have. His love > for Lily, his unendurable pain of losing her, and siding with DD > in saving Harry for her were the only things that saves him from > being as lothesome as any other DeathEater. Yet these things that > make him heroic and brave (a Gryffindor)are there for Lily but > sadly do not really change him from being prejudicial and evil > ( a Slytherin). This maybe hard to hear but Snape is not a good > guy. zgirnius: As you say, Snape *was* a Death Eater. Past tense. I see plenty of evidence that since then, Snape has changed, and in particular, is no longer 'evil' or 'prejudiced'. I think the latter point is the reason Rowling chose to include the snippet of conversation in which Phineas Nigellus called Hermione a Mudblood. As to evidence that Snape is not 'evil' - he takes on plenty of responsibilities and tasks that are only remotely, or not at all, related to protecting Harry, for what would seem to be 'good' motives. He tried to save Lupin's life, he agreed to work to protect the students of Hogwarts, and despite his concern about killing, he agrees to kill Dumbledore to spare him 'pain and humiliation'. And the evidence I see is not all in "The Prince's Tale". In CoS, Snape grips a chair in a spontaneous reaction to the news a student has been taken by the monster - showing concern for someone not in any way related to Lily/Harry. In GoF, his decision to return to Voldemort is arguably about protecting Harry - but his decision to show Fudge his Dark Mark as proof of Voldemort's return, is not, not is it on Dumbledore's orders. It is an action he takes spontaneously in response to the circumstances. In OotP he shows concern for Neville's well-being on a couple of occasions, and is prompt in invesitgating the possibility that Sirius Black, whom Snape despises (in my opinion, with some reason), has been captured by Voldemort. In HBP, it is his independent choice to take the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa, knowing (as we did not know, before DH) that the problematic final clause is not, in fact, a problem. Yes, Narcissa and Draco are on the 'evil side', but compassion for a fellow human being's problems, regardless of what side they are on, is not 'evil' (rather the opposite, in my view). Addressing Amanda's point - I absolutely agree Snape was given a 'bad rep'. The comment of Hagrid's Kimberly mentions about Slytherins helps to set the tone, as does the scene at the Welcoming Feast in which it seems Harry's scar hurts becasue of Snape. Also, there are games with leaking information that Rowling plays to enhance this. For instance, we learn that Snape hated James in Book 1, while we finally get some concrete evidence that makes this understandable to us, in Book 5, giving us all that time to marvel at how completely unfair Snape is! (It is possible to still hold this view after OotP, I realize - my point is that holding a more moderate view of this aspect of Snape's character before OotP requires being a far better guesser than I could ever be). We are shown Snape's over the top, and quite off-putting, fury at Sirius Black in PoA, apparently over 'a schoolboy prank', and the hint there might be a deeper (and far more palatable) reason in HBP, when we learn Dumbledore thinks Snape regretted endangering the Potters. Within HBP, we are shown, in detail, Snape seemingly plotting with Narcissa and Bella to do something important for Voldemort; his saving of Dumbledore's life maybe a week before that scene, is introduced to us far later, in conversation, and Dumbleore glosses over it. All to paint Snape as darkly as possible (presumably so that we, like Harry, can be surprised by the revelations of "The Prince's Tale"). Finally, Snape's personality made this far easier for Rowling, as many readers, like Harry, were probably delighted to find more reasons to dislike this (to some) unlikable character. Like Amanda, I agree that Snape was "one of the good guys". But I don't regret the time and effort Rowling spent on obfuscation to hide this. Combing through the series to justify my own gut reaction to HBP (DDM!Snape) was great fun (and the reason I joined online fandom). And the utter lack of any recognition by other characters on his side of his contributions to the struggle until the very end when the truth was shown to us, is a part of the tragedy of this character which, for me anyway, makes his story all the more moving and meaningful. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Wed Oct 24 15:36:33 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:36:33 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes References: <000801c81633$9eab9fd0$9d2cecdc@winxp> Message-ID: <008401c81653$a842dcf0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178405 Bunny wrote: > I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why JK > Rowling 'outed' > Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and > to many religions, is > totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response > in India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and > her books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many > cultures and she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of > this. It's too late now but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would > have been best for everyone. Bunny Miles: Well, this seems to be kind of sorting ceremony, right? Obviously the readers are sorted in two houses, one with the tolerant people and one with ... the others. The message of the books is one of tolerance towards differences. The message was very clear from the beginning. Races do not count in the wizarding world, but some wizards do make a difference between Muggles, Mudbloods and Purebloods. Those wizards are bad, because they are intolerant and bigot. The message is very clear, right? I'm taken aback that people appreciate this message of tolerance for all seven books, but now think everything changes because they are demanded to include homosexuality into their scope of tolerance. It's very easy to "buy" a fictional tolerance. Nobody would think s/he'd be prejudiced against Mudbloods, everyone would see him/herself as a fighter for tolerance within the Potterverse. But Dumbledore gay - how disgusting? When I first heard about JKR telling this about Dumbledore I thought "well, nice detail, but not important". I still think that this information is a nice background information for DD/GG, but doesn't change very much for the series in general. But reading mails here on the list and reactions from countries without much tradition of Enlightenment, obviously JKR was very, very right in making her point clear. We do not have "Mudbloods" in our world - our "Mudbloods" are called "faggots", "niggers", or "Jews"... Miles From marshsundeen at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 15:50:29 2007 From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:50:29 -0000 Subject: JKR Revelation about Dumbledore helps explain Canon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178406 The revelation that JKR sees Dumbledore as gay helps explain certain action or non-action by Dumbledore with reference to Grindelwald. Telling Harry about his relationship with Grindelwald, "...his ideas caught me, inflamed me,"[p. 716 American version Deathly Hallows]. "Grindelwald fled, as anyone but I could have predicted" [p. 717 DH]. "Years pased. There were rumors about him. They said he had procured a wand of immense power...I delayed meeting him until finally, it would have been too shameful to resist any longer. People were dying and he seemed unstoppable, and I had to do what I could."[p.717-718 DH]. Not only was Dumbledore afraid of finding out whether he killed Ariana, he had the further burden of needing to face and defeat someone that he was in love with or infatuated with at one time. Whether the relationship was mutual or physical is irrelevant. Prof. Slughorn mentioned in [Half-Blood Prince p. 186] when discussing Amortentia, "this will simply cause a powerful infatuation or obsession. It is probably the most dangerous and powerful potion in this room--oh yes. When you have seen as much of life as I have, you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love." It is possible that Dumbledore was as obsessed with Grindelwald that summer as Bellatrix Lestrange shows herself to be obsessed with Voldemort. The consequences are shown as disastrous in both instances. marshallsundeen From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Oct 24 15:19:16 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:19:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? References: Message-ID: <008f01c81651$3e47e400$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178407 Ok, this has been asked by many people, so I'm not going to attribute it to anyone in particular: > Does any of it *really* matter to the story? I say yes, it does. Like every other quote from Rowling that has happened between the books, didn't we speculate and reread the series looking for clues that related to those revelations? Didn't those insights color our readings of the books themselves? Didn't it color predictions about what was to come? I'm going to go out on a limb here- maybe I'm right, maybe I'm barking up a tree, but here's how it colors my readings so far: Paula brought up a good point- wouldn't a romantic relationship make DD blind or at least delayed in seeing how wrong/evil/potentially damaging Grindewald's views were? Call it youth and foolishness, but having a crush makes a teen even more vulnerable to making mistakes in judgment. Here's some more potential impacts to the story: Isn't the duel itself affected by the previous romantic relationship? Doesn't it then become personal instead of just an ideological difference? Rita Skeeter's book. Oh boy on this one. Although we aren't told what was actually in it, it's a strong potential that DD's relationship with Gradual is indeed the bombshell that she was intending to unleash on the entire Wizarding World- that subject alone could have carried a whole book, don't you think? The Dumbledore no one knew...isn't that was her slant was? In my mind, I can just imagine Rita interviewing the historian lady, who tells of a witnessing DD and Gradual in their youth having a "Brokeback Mountain" moment out in the field. From there, she colors the dual as a lover's quarrel. Then Rita goes on to explain how DD remains celibate for a long time, until he meets the young Harry Potter and is taken in by this young wizard's extraordinary talents, and then makes the comparisons of how Harry is so like DD's first lover, no wonder why DD couldn't help but be reminded of his first love and couldn't help himself in pursuing Harry. She could then put in print the suggestion about the sexual nature of the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore. Don't you think that Rita would stoop low enough to go there given her past trashy writings- oh the book sales!- with Harry's "private meetings" all alone in DD's office late into the night? Oh, at times they even snuck out of the castle together, including that night that DD died! Harry never publicly revealed what was talked about, so there would be no one to counter her suggestions on what actually happened in those late night sessions. The historian lady is dead, DD is dead, and there were no other witnesses. Only Harry would be able to deny it, and he's been slandered before in the press and media to great effect. There would people who would buy it totally, people who would think it all rubbish, and some who would think there were grains of truth imbedded in that story. There would even be fans of Rita's who would know it would be all trash, but still love the juicy, gossipy nature of it all anyway. Even though Harry himself married, it clearly was after DD died. The timing and circumstances of it all would make for one trashy and shocking novel that would sell, don't you think? Right up Rita's alley, IMHO. So, yeah, thinking about a gay DD does make a difference to the story for me, for it certainly could explain that whole bit about Rita's book. Previously, it had felt like an unresolved section- why even mention Rita's book if we weren't to learn later what it was about? To me that book mention was a set up for a further plot development, one that was never revealed in the epilogue. Maybe this announcement of DD's gayness was Rowling's way of beginning to tell us the rest of that story? Shelley [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 16:18:46 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: I apologize for provate post accisentally being posted to group Message-ID: <417585.44174.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178410 Hello all, I accidentally posted a private message to the Elves on the list. I apologize. I deleted the post ASAP, but those of you who receive individual emails probably got it. I am very sorry. Please delete it if you received it. It was meant for Elves' eyes only. Thanks, and peace, 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 prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 17:07:30 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:07:30 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <008401c81653$a842dcf0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178411 A recent posting of mine appears to have disappeared into the ether... it may have been related to that deleted post, because that could have been the post I was responding to. In any event, if you are receiving a post very similar to one you just received, I apologize. I do wish I had saved what I had written the first time... I think the recent poster who quoted how Dumbledore would feel about Lupin and Tonks' wedding had it right - happy to have more love in the world. This seems to be a message JKR continues to echo in her recent interviews. For a series that was so much about prejudice, and about love, it makes a lot of sense that these ideas should be combined. And I think it really can inform a lot about the story, if you want it to. It can also be totally irrelevant - Dumbledore, the eccentric, brilliant wizard who never married... none of the professors we get to know appear to have much of a personal life. You can choose to reject that Neville got married also - I think I assumed he didn't when he became the herbology professor. It seems to be a Hogwarts thing. But if you do accept it, there is a lot to look into, layers to unfold and examine. I thought DD's great temptation was power - and I think that's still true. But in giving up his quest for power, could this also mean he gave up love? And yet, throughout his life he maintains his belief in love, encourages love in others, spreads love and the idea of the power of love to everyone. A man with what seems to have been a tragic life, spreading humor and love to those around him. That those around him would refer to him as one who would be glad to see more love in the world after he was gone speaks of a powerful legacy. And if you really can't get past the news? If it irrevocably changes things? Well, all I can think of is the idea of some teen, or other person, who feels isolated, alone, without someone to identify with, thinking that the feelings they're having are shameful, need to be hidden, covered up. And if they know what she has said, and can find some hope, someone to identify with - someone good, and powerful, and beloved - and that helps them? That's a good thing. And I'd trade that for every person out there who is so unable to get past their own stuff that they can no longer enjoy these books. If the presence of one thing that you disagree with or don't understand is enough to keep you from wanting to see, hear, or participate in something... there is a lot in this world you will miss out on. Because the rest of us will continue to create, to interact, to be a part of humanity and all of its differences. And the world will pass you by. And you'll miss out on a lot of wonderful things. These books have been about prejudice and love from the beginning. I think it's rather fitting that those ideas should intersect. Even if the sad fact is that it divides the people who have come together in enjoyment of them. I think JKR has certainly achieved relevancy. Really, I want to know when we can get back to doing what this group is really about - debating who is better, Sirius or Severus, and finding the 'good Slytherin'! ~Adam(Prep0strus), who was originally responding to something offensive that may no longer exist, but he didn't quote it anyway because he was too offended by it. And who apologizes for not being able to find the post with the precise quote of how Dumbledore loves love and wants more of it in the world. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 17:19:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:19:26 -0000 Subject: Other New News In-Reply-To: <471EC7CE.2020708@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178412 Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > > As for Moody seeing thorough it, once again he was using a 'magical' eye to see through a 'magical' object. I don't have much trouble believing that's possible. > Random832 replied: > But that's just it - any old invisibility cloak is 'magical' - but his is supposed to be infallible - even DEATH can't see through it. I'm leaning towards the eye having a special significance and legends of its own - after all, if it was just any old magical eye, Umbridge wouldn't have claimed it as a trophy. > Carol responds: Death can't see through it in "The Tale of the Three Brothers," true. But, as DD tells Harry in "King's Cross," that story is just a legend that sprang up about the Hallows some time after their creation. They were really just the inventions of three highly talented and powerful wizards. Death as a character or person is no more real in the WW than the Grim Reaper is in the RW. He's just a personification in a children's story. So, just as the owner of the "unbeatable" Elder Wand can be defeated, the supposedly perfect Invisibility Cloak can be seen through by certain types of magic, including a simple, silent Hominem Revelio spell, according to JKR (her explanation for DD's ability to see beneath the cloak in Hagrid's hut. Why didn't the bad guys, or the usually brilliant Snape, think of that?). http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html ("Hominem Revelio" is misspelled as "homenum revelio" in the transcript.) I have no doubt, though, that the magical eye, which is extremely creepy and can even see when it's not being used by a person, has, if not "special significance and legends of its own," at least somewhat Dark powers. I have a feeling that Mad-eye found it in Knockturn Alley, such things apparently not being for sale in Diagon Alley under normal circumstances. (I think Umbridge requested it from her DE relative Selwyn, myself; otherwise, it's hard to see why he was suddenly introduced as a DE in Book 7 after being unmentioned for six books.) Carol, who thinks that the Hallows are somewhat more fallible than legend makes them and that even the "Master of Death" idea is probably exaggerated, death being beyond the power of magic to defeat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 17:27:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:27:27 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178413 "Carol" wrote: > I think that you should enjoy and reread them. JKR didn't say that > Dumbledore IS gay. She said when she was writing it, she pictured him > as being gay, which was her own thoughts of him, not anyone else's. > There's no where in the books that even hint to that. It's just a > ploy. I'm sure she was joking overall, and everyone is making a big > deal out of it. It's everyone else constantly bringing it up and > saying he is gay. He is only what YOU want him to be. As a writer, > JKR plants notions, it's up to you to take them where you want them. > The books themselves do NOT say or hint he is gay and JK did NOT say > he IS gay, only that SHE pictured him that way. These are just books > and a story after all. Dumbledore is not a real person, so the books > should just be read for entertainment, enjoyment, not taken like it > is completely real. If YOU don't want him to be gay, then he isn't. > > Carol > Carol (JustCarol) responds: Just to avoid confusion, I want to let others know that this is not my post. No agreement or disagreement intended, only clarification. Carol, who wondered why she didn't recognize this post and then realized that it was someone else's From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 17:38:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:38:27 -0000 Subject: Mad-eye's body (Was: Other New News) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178414 Melissa wrote: > I was wondering that very thing when I wrote my initial post. Pity we will never know for certain. I also wonder what exactly happened to Moody's body. That bothered me a little bit. > > Melissa Carol responds: I think we're shown what happened to Mad-eye's body in chapter 1--the same thing that happened to Charity Burbage's body (and, by deduction, to Frank Bryce's and Bertha Jorkins's in GoF)--"Dinner, Nagini." She would not, of course, be able to digest either the eyeball or the leg. I wouldn't be surprised if Florian Fortescue, who disappeared without a trace, was Nagini's victim, as well. Carol, realizing that this is a macabre explanation, but it's the only clue we're given as to what happened to the bodies of these victims From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 18:17:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:17:57 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178415 Carol wrote: > > Carol, who thinks that JKR has sidetracked us from the real themes of the book with her imagined view of Dumbledore > > ***Katie responded: > > I disagree. The real theme of the book - the *main* theme of the book - is that bigotry is wrong and tolorance and acceptance are right. > > (snip) > > I see Dumbledore's sexuality as simply a continuation of what she (and I) saw as the theme of the books.(snip) Dumbledore's sexuality is only a distracting issue if it's made into one. > ***Laurel Lei*** added: > > I agree, Katie... please refer to Canon below. > > "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." -Albus Dumbledore, pg. 723, GoF -J.K. Rowling > > My two knuts... Carol responds: One quotation does not make a particular theme, however important it may be, "the main theme" of the books. Death and the eternal life of the soul are also major themes (really motifs) in DH, as are many other ideas and concepts. I'm merely stating that, IMO, DD's temptation by power is more important within the context of DH than his sexuality, which is, at best, only hinted at, and his actions are explained in the books in other ways (e.g., two brilliant and arrogant boys intrigued by the concept of the Deathly Hallows and their potential uses or his guilt and remorse regarding his role in Ariana's death). I was not talking about "tolerance" at all; I was talking about sexuality (specifically, DD's, in which Harry, the protagonist, shows no interest or even awareness). Certainly, JKR thinks that the books are, at least in part, about tolerance. However, they're also "about" growing up, making choices, the power of love (especially self-sacrificial love), forgiveness, redemption, and a number of other ideas and concepts which this discussion seems to have distracted us from. I think I can safely say that the books are not about "tolerance of homosexuality" per se, considering that the issue has not been raised in the books, only in an interview. Equal rights for werewolves, yes. The right to humane treatment for House-elves, yes. The equality of Muggle-borns and other witches and wizards, yes. And those motifs within the books do seem to relate to what listees (and JKR herself) are calling "tolerance." But whether JKR has succeeded in her message of "tolerance" is a matter of debate, as previous threads indicate. Moreover, and this is my main point in this post, "tolerance" is not the only important theme or motif, particularly in relation to Dumbledore (whose chief temptation is power and who is also tempted for all the wrong reasons to bring back, first, his parents, and later, Ariana, from the dead). However, I do wonder how DD became what Draco calls an "old Muggle lover," given the effects of the incident with the three Muggle boys and Ariana on his entire family's lives, and I think we can connect that incident to his attitude toward Muggles during his brief relationship with Gellert Grindelwald. He ends up reading Muggle newspapers, enjoying Muggle sweets, liking chamber music and ten-pin bowling (Muggle pastimes, surely?)--all indications of a wider interest in Muggles, IMO, and certainly a far cry from wanting to rule Muggles and Muggle-borns for "the greater good." Does anyone else see a gap or disconnect between the young Dumbledore, both before and after the two-month friendship/infatuation with GG and his ideas, and the older Dumbledore, whom we see at his youngest with Tom Riddle in HBP? Certainly, he felt guilt and remorse for Arizna's death, but how would that lead to tolerance for Muggles? Maybe having a Muggle-born mother had something to do with it, but Kendra was not an ideal mother, and she's the one who hid Ariana in the first place after the incident with the Muggle boys. Am I missing something? Carol, just wanting us to look at the complete picture as it's presented in the books without being distracted by new information from an interview (or what JKR wants us to think) From dreadr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 18:14:41 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:14:41 -0000 Subject: JKR Revelation about Dumbledore helps explain Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178416 marshallsundeen: --- Prof. Slughorn mentioned in [Half-Blood Prince p. 186] when > discussing Amortentia, "this will simply cause a powerful infatuation > or obsession. It is probably the most dangerous and powerful potion > in this room--oh yes. When you have seen as much of life as I have, > you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love." It is > possible that Dumbledore was as obsessed with Grindelwald that summer > as Bellatrix Lestrange shows herself to be obsessed with Voldemort. > The consequences are shown as disastrous in both instances. I actually always felt that perhaps Slughorn was referring to Snape/Lily and his obsession with her. I am actually a little tired of all the commotion about DD. I do feel that it helped to explain why DD delayed so long in pursuing GG. I don't have a problem with DD being gay. I have had many friends over the years who were. They are not all pedophiles. Mostly of them are really decent guys who are attempting to live a very difficult lifestyle. There is not even any evidence that DD continued a gay lifestyle. I agree with someone else who stated that they had always viewed DD as being "asexual". It would be easy to understand after such a disastrous relationship with such devastating consequences. Especially since it occurred at such a young, impressionable age. It has no bearing on canon except where DD/GG are concerned. Why not let it rest? As for the fact that this is a "children's" series, first -- it hasn't really been since POA and second -- have you seen some of the YA fiction that is out there? Some of it is much worse than anything in this! Debbie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 18:41:29 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:41:29 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol wrote: > > > Carol, who thinks that JKR has sidetracked us from the real themes of the book with her imagined view of Dumbledore > > > > ***Katie responded: > > > I disagree. The real theme of the book - the *main* theme of the book - is that bigotry is wrong and tolorance and acceptance are right. > > > (snip) > > > I see Dumbledore's sexuality as simply a continuation of what > she (and I) saw as the theme of the books.(snip) Dumbledore's > sexuality is only a distracting issue if it's made into one. > > > ***Laurel Lei*** added: > > > > I agree, Katie... please refer to Canon below. > > > > "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims > are identical and our hearts are open." -Albus Dumbledore, pg. 723, > GoF -J.K. Rowling > > > > My two knuts... > > Carol responds: > <<<>>> Certainly, JKR thinks that the books are, at least in part, about tolerance. However, they're also "about" growing up, making choices, the power of love (especially self-sacrificial love), forgiveness, redemption, and a number of other ideas and concepts which this discussion seems to have distracted us from. I think I can safely say that the books are not about "tolerance of homosexuality" per se, considering that the issue has not been raised in the books, only in an interview. Equal rights for werewolves, yes. The right to humane treatment for House-elves, yes. The equality of Muggle-borns and other witches and wizards, yes. And those motifs within the books do seem to relate to what listees (and JKR herself) are calling "tolerance." But whether JKR has succeeded in her message of "tolerance" is a matter of debate, as previous threads indicate. > > Moreover, and this is my main point in this post, "tolerance" is not the only important theme or motif, particularly in relation to > Dumbledore (whose chief temptation is power and who is also tempted > for all the wrong reasons to bring back, first, his parents, and > later, Ariana, from the dead). <<>> > > Carol, just wanting us to look at the complete picture as it's > presented in the books without being distracted by new information > from an interview (or what JKR wants us to think) ***Katie(already begging forgiveness from the Elves for posting so much today): I certainly agree with you that the books are in no way focused on homosexuality (I actually don't see it in the books *at all*), but I still disagree with you that tolerance is not the main theme. I see tolerance/anti-bigotry as the *only* theme that carries through all 7 books. I see a theme as different than a plot. Dumbledore's seeking of power is part of the plot. Ariana's death is part of the plot. These things may bear on the themes and sub-themes, but they are not themes in and of themselves. I also have to say that I believe the sub-themes you mentioned: love, forgiveness, the power of love, and redemption; are all intertwined with the theme of tolerance. Where does bigotry come from? Fear, hatred, inability to accept and forgive...I believe JKR combined all these ideas into a virtual treatise on bigotry. Whether she was successful in that...that's highly debatable. I would, with the exception of the DH, say yes. However, her conclusions to these threads were highly ineffectual, IMO. As I have posted previously, I think her conclusion of the House Elf storyline was incredibly contradictory to the previous 6 books, and I find Harry's final remark about Kreacher entirely out of character and very distasteful. Getting back to the topic at hand, I think that we all see what we would like to see in the books, which is what makes them so enjoyable. Being a very political and very liberal person, I saw the bigotry angle as the most pervasive theme in the books. Someone who is more focused on relationships might see love as *the* theme of the books, excluding others. I think what is unfortunate about JKR's seemingly constant interviews is that we all are left without our own interpretations of the books. However, I find it equally unfortunate that so many of my fellow HP fans are so unwilling to accept their beloved Dumbledore as a gay man (I am NOT accusing you of this, Carol, or any other specific person on-list. Just saying this disappoints me in general.) That is very disheartening to me. I guess what I am saying is, to each, his own. I will continue to see HP as political and philosophical books about bigotry and fighting the establishment, and other people will see them differently. I just hope we can all start being a bit more polite in our disagreements. (Again, Carol, totally NOT directed at you, who is always very polite and respectful.) KATIE From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 19:04:39 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:04:39 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ yes In-Reply-To: <383887.9207.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178418 Bunny said: ???those making excuses for why JK Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality in many countries and to many religions, is totally unacceptable and offensive. I've been told that the response in India, for example, has been hostile outpourings towards JKR and her books. She knows her books are read in many countries by many cultures and she has certainly enjoyed the financial benefits of this. It's too late now but if she'd kept her mouth shut, it would have been best for everyone. Shelley said: I hear talk on other lists of people who are deciding that their younger children won't be reading the series because of this announcement, as that's what people are now thinking this series is about (for those who haven't read it fully so far). Katie said: JKR wanted to promote a message of love and acceptance, so if certain people can no longer accept the books and the message because Dumbledore is gay...well, I would say that is their loss, not JKR's. Tonks: It will be their lost. But you see this is exactly the point. The main teaching in the books will be dismissed because Rowling has crossed the line. All that she has worked for all of these years will be thrown out the window, the baby with the bathwater. This is not an argument about gay rights for me. It is an argument about common sense in getting a point across to millions of people around the world, some of which as Bunny pointed out are from other religions and cultures. It does no service to the books to insult the people that you want to read it. There is great and important teaching in these books. This series, IMO has the power to change the world. But, NOW, if people won???t pick up the books or in some countries won???t let it pass the sensors, what good is that? If you want to bring someone around to your way of thinking, especially when they are no where near it, you don???t start by hitting them over the head with the most controversial point. You start SLOWLY. Change can only happen slowly. Public opinion can only be changed slowly over time. Any sensible person knows this. Personally I think she was short on sleep and not thinking clearly. Like I said before, she shot herself and the potential readers in the foot. STUPID. I wish there was a real time turner so we can go back and redo this. Make the kid who asked the question go somewhere else that day. When she really thinks about what she has done, I bet she wishes she had a time turner too. Again this has NOTHING to do with gay rights. I am NOT anti-gay. It has to do with salesmanship and getting a message actually heard and people WILLING to follow it. Baby-steps, that is where you start. You start at the beginning, start where the reader is, not where you want them to be. Again what Rowling did was Stupid and harmful. She killed off half of our beloved heroes, and not she is trying to kill her books. Tonks_op From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 19:12:05 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:12:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710241212g1b1aa209t489c17cf110679c7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178419 > > Carol: > > However, I do wonder how DD became what Draco calls an "old Muggle > lover," given the effects of the incident with the three Muggle boys > and Ariana on his entire family's lives, and I think we can connect > that incident to his attitude toward Muggles during his brief > relationship with Gellert Grindelwald. He ends up reading Muggle > newspapers, enjoying Muggle sweets, liking chamber music and ten-pin > bowling (Muggle pastimes, surely?)--all indications of a wider > interest in Muggles, IMO, and certainly a far cry from wanting to rule > Muggles and Muggle-borns for "the greater good." Does anyone else see > a gap or disconnect between the young Dumbledore, both before and > after the two-month friendship/infatuation with GG and his ideas, and > the older Dumbledore, whom we see at his youngest with Tom Riddle in > HBP? Certainly, he felt guilt and remorse for Arizna's death, but how > would that lead to tolerance for Muggles? Maybe having a Muggle-born > mother had something to do with it, but Kendra was not an ideal > mother, and she's the one who hid Ariana in the first place after the > incident with the Muggle boys. Am I missing something? montims: I read it that, GG having run away after Ariana's death, DD's brother gave him a good talking to, not to mention a bloody nose, and DD resolved to come to his senses and reject all the theories GG had once enflamed him with... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 19:21:54 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:21:54 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178420 ***Katie(already begging forgiveness from the Elves for posting so much today): I certainly agree with you that the books are in no way focused on homosexuality (I actually don't see it in the books *at all*), but I still disagree with you that tolerance is not the main theme. I see tolerance/anti-bigotry as the *only* theme that carries through all 7 books. I see a theme as different than a plot. Dumbledore's seeking of power is part of the plot. Ariana's death is part of the plot. These things may bear on the themes and sub-themes, but they are not themes in and of themselves. Tiffany: I never saw any direct evidence of homosexuality at all in the canon, but I had my doubts about DD based on what I was reading in the novels. I agree that tolerance is the main theme in all 7 canonical novels, but I feel that JKR wanted the reader to learn & come to age in the same way that Harry Potter did. I think the real key moment, to me, was when his ideas about Slytherins just being evil was shattered. I didn't care for the one-liners & poorly developed sub- plots & storylines in DH though. Otherwise I loved almost everything about all 7 books with few reservations. From marshsundeen at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 18:51:02 2007 From: marshsundeen at hotmail.com (marshallsundeen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:51:02 -0000 Subject: JKR Revelation about Dumbledore helps explain Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178421 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: > I actually always felt that perhaps Slughorn was referring to > Snape/Lily and his obsession with her. > > I am actually a little tired of all the commotion about DD. I agree that far too much is being made of the revelation. I did not believe that Slughorn was at all referring to Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald. I was using the "obsessive love" quote to show that the effects of such love is referred to in the books. The Harry Potter series deals with sexuality, power and discrimination. I like that we learned all about Dumbledore-- strengths and weaknesses--before we ever learned anything about his orientation. It isn't that important except to clairify his hesitancy to confront Grindelwald--that is all. marshallsundeen From alick_leslie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 24 13:56:40 2007 From: alick_leslie at yahoo.co.uk (alick_leslie) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:56:40 -0000 Subject: Teacher relationships Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178422 All this dumbledore kerfuffle has made me wonder if there is a necessity for teachers in such schools to be unmarried. None, in my shaky memory, mention a spouse or partner at all. It seems a bit wierd given that the majority of adult characters are hitched in one way or another. Have I missed something? The group search facility is down so I haven't been able to check back. Alick If people have a dislike of homosexuality or even a tengential mention of it in art (presumably derived from the monotheistic religions), why are they happy to take part in discussion of the very explicit portrayal of witchcraft? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 20:00:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:00:33 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: <383887.9207.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178423 --- Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Bunny wrote: > I appreciate all your comments, but those making excuses for why > JK Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, should consider that homosexuality > in many countries and to many religions, is totally unacceptable > and offensive. ... > > ***Katie: > So, because many people have an opinion, that makes it ok? I'm > sorry, but intolorance is never acceptable, even if many people > feel that way. JKR has said that she wrote these books as a story > about tolorance, acceptance, and love. > > ... > > Katie bboyminn: Relative to the comment that 'in many countries and to religions (being gay) is totally unacceptable and offensive'; the only problem I have with that statement is that for many billions of people in the world, it is simply not true. As a religion and as a culture, I don't think Buddhists have a big problem with gay people. They believe in Karma, that this life is payment for the previous life. They are more inclined to believe a person's lot in life is a matter of fate, than sin. As far as I know, Hindu's take a similar view, that what is - simply is. If there are problems in India, it is probably with Muslims, or it is contamination from western culture. To bring this all back to the books, and to keep our fair Mods happy, this series is not about Dumbledore's personal life. This is Harry's story, and Dumbledore only comes into play to the extent that his life intersects and affects Harry. What happened between Dumbledore and Grindlewald over 100 years ago, is only relevant to the plot in the way it played out in the story. Those extraneous details, while interesting, are not related to THIS story nor toward moving this story forward. We know, to some reasonable extent, JKR has extreme details backgrounds on every character. She knows Theodor Knot and Draco Malfoy's life inside and out, but those details are not relevant to the Harry's story, so we don't find them in the books. Now if someone asks her a direct question about Draco, she is going to answer, and we have to accept the answer she gives. Maybe, though very unlikely, Theo and Draco had their own fling while at school. But how is that relevant to Harry's story? It's not, so you won't find and shouldn't expect to find that backstory in the book. If you want to read that, I'm sure it has already appeared in Slash Fiction. What is relevant to Harry's story is that Dumbledore and Grindlewald were close friends when they were young, and they sought, or at least dreamed about seeking, the Hallows together. That friendship ended abruptly and tragically. Those are the details that are important to Harry's story. The exact, and possibly intimate, nature of Dumbledore and Grindlewalds relationship is not 'need to know' information for Harry or for moving the story forward. JKR has a complete life story worked out for Sirius, but that is Sirius's story, and all those details are not relevant to Harry. So they are not in the books. Again, if asked directly, JKR may reveal details she knows about Sirius, and we have to accept them even if we don't like them. Again, don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to hear the answer. Certainly, JKR told us everything we needed to know to understand, and find resolution in Harry's story, but that is not EVERYTHING there is to know. So, Dumbledore is gay; an interesting tidbit, but unrelated to Harry's story. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 15:32:55 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:32:55 -0000 Subject: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178424 colebiancardi wrote: > where on earth does one go from being gay to ephebophile? Del replies: I argued that the canon doesn't present DD as having ever been "just" gay. That was the point of my post. > What if GG was a female instead of a male and the rest of the story > was the same? Would we think that DD prefers young teen females? If GG had been female *and* we had a couple of examples of DD failing to appropriately discipline seriously misbehaving female students, then yes, I would be arguing that maybe he's not making his decisions concerning those students strictly with his head and heart. > oh please. romantic dream on the part of DD? Trust me, children > know about sexual vibes from adults and Harry was a 15 year old at > that time. First, I disagree with your opinion that "children know about sexual vibes from adults": sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, in my personal opinion and experience. And second, Harry was made to feel extremely uncomfortable by DD's reaction. He attributes that to a different reason, but we know that Harry is sometimes very bad at identifying other people's feelings. > If DD was straight and it was Helda Potter instead of Harry > Potter and Helda stated that she was DD's man's thru & thru (same > setting, same everything), would you think that 150 year old DD had > the hots for Helda? My argument is based on a *series* of pieces of evidence, not on a single one. > and there is where I differ with Del. I see nothing in the HP world > that supports DD being an ephebophile And I see even less that supports DD being gay. > - DD plays his role well; an > adult male, who is wise and good and who CARES about the children he > teaches/protects, just like any good adult who deals with children. That in itself doesn't exclude the possibility of ephebophilia. Ephebophiles can do all of that too. > why? why would you think that there is canon to support that theory > over what the author has just stated? Why not? JKR gave us another piece of the DD puzzle (he fell in love with GG - a *fact*) and then her *opinion* about the man (he was gay). What I'm saying is that, in my eyes, the fact doesn't support the opinion, that's all. > Nothing else in the books makes DD a creepy kind of man who secretly > lusts after hot boys. Creepy, yes, but that's my personal view. Who secretly lusts after boys: no, not on its own. *However*, when taken within the context that DD once fell in love with a young man, then some otherwise innocent pieces take on an ambiguous aspect in my eyes. In other words: some pieces, when looked at in the light of "DD is straight like everyone else" look innocent enough, but when taken in the light of "DD prefers males" they don't look that innocent to me anymore. That's precisely why I titled my thread "the problems with DD being gay", though it might more appropriately have been named "the problems with DD liking men". > Just as I know Lee is black, because JKR made him that way, DD is > gay, because JKR made him that way. I don't see this as a matter of "just as". Lee being black is an integral part of the books, it is talked about in the books themselves. DD's sexual orientation, on the other hand, isn't. The books tell us precisely *nothing* about DD's sexual orientation and/or activity. For all we know, he once fell in love with GG, then fell in love with several women later on, and yet had no sex with anyone ever. That would still fit the canon, though it would go against JKR's *opinion*. > I really do not believe that JKR wanted her comments on DD being gay > to be taken so out of context that he is really a pervert who > secretly lusts after teenage boys. Of course not. But then I don't really care what JKR wants. She can say and do and write whatever she wants, but I am still free to analyse the books on my own. > And if GG was an evil, beautiful woman and DD was straight, the > consequences would have been the same. I never said otherwise. > It has nothing to do with being gay or straight or lusting after > age-inappropriate boys. Again: my position is not based on a single argument, but on a series of them. If DD had waited to confront his beautiful female lover, and had failed, at least twice, to appropriately punish seriously misbehaving beautiful female students, then would it be such a big leap to wonder if maybe he has a serious weakness where young beautiful girls are concerned? > and maybe some should reconsider this whole thread. I think a quote > from Freud sums this up for me - "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" Indeed. But then, sometimes, it's not. Especially in the world of HP. I have no problem with everyone else seeing this one as just a cigar. I'm just saying that I can make a case for this cigar not being a cigar, based on canon evidence. From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 20:04:27 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:04:27 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178425 snip, snip, snip> > ~Adam(Prep0strus), who was originally responding to something > offensive that may no longer exist, but he didn't quote it anyway > because he was too offended by it. And who apologizes for not being > able to find the post with the precise quote of how Dumbledore loves > love and wants more of it in the world. > Adam, it's page 624 of my edition of the Half Blood Prince... Tonks has brought up how Fleur still wants to marry Bill.... "This is....not the moment to discuss it," said Lupin, avoiding everybody's eyes as he looked around distractedly. "Dumbledore is dead...." "Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world," Susan From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 24 21:22:58 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:22:58 -0000 Subject: Teacher relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178426 Alick: > All this dumbledore kerfuffle has made me wonder if there is a > necessity for teachers in such schools to be unmarried. Celoneth: I don't think that there is a necessity, apart from the burden of being apart w/ a teacher having to spend lots of time in the school - which (under normal circumstances) could be minimal for regular teachers since they can just apparate home. I don't think all the teachers live at Hogwarts, especially w/ JKR's recent statement about Neville & Hannah. Might be more problematic for heads of houses if they're required to stay on during the evenings. I believe that JKR said that some of the teachers are married, and given that we don't know about the vast majority of teachers they might very well be married or in relationships - it just never comes up because Harry doesn't deal w/ them on a regular basis. Celoneth From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 24 21:30:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:30:18 -0400 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <1193224404.898.55708.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1193224404.898.55708.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9E49C35BD8494-9E4-3E28@WEBMAIL-DC05.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178427 Shelley now: Yes, that's exactly what I feel she's doing. She had this great story in her head, and the last book starts to diverge from it. Then, all the interviews following seem to diverge from it even further, and that's exactly what I see this gay comment as being, so much so that I don't consider it to be canon. I really wonder if this gay thought of hers is a new one- if indeed she just thought of it, but that it certainly wasn't anywhere in her mind when she planned out this series. It would explain why it feels so disconnected from the series. Julie: This I don't get. There was nothing in the books that indicated Dumbledore was gay, this is true. There is also nothing in the books that indicated Dumbledore is straight either. There is *nothing* about his sexuality whatsoever that I can discern. So how can it matter whether it turns out he was always gay or was straight, when it had NO impact in the books, any more than whether he was right or left handed? I do see other areas where there was a disconnect?between the other books and DH, like Harry performing a Crucio. But Dumbledore's sexual preference--either way--nope, I just don't see it at all... 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 rkdas at charter.net Wed Oct 24 21:51:51 2007 From: rkdas at charter.net (rkdas at charter.net) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:51:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Everyone needs to read this! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071024175151.52OUK.52928.root@fepweb13> No: HPFGUIDX 178428 Dear CFW, Thanks for the warning note. I am not on the site these days. I couldn't deal with "the end" and am now in a dormancy state, although I did wonder what JKR's little bomb would do and I see it has had its effect. I must say I didn't know what to make of it except that I found it to be rather inconsequential. Perhaps it's a sign JKR isn't ready to relinquish the hoopla Harry commanded. Jen Das From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 21:57:07 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:57:07 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kimberleyelizabeth" wrote: > I was a little disappointed at Harry's reaction when he learned > all of Snape's secrets. I have to say it was something I suspected > since book 3. I wanted to read some kind of shock or denial once > Harry found out. But there was nothing just acceptance. zanooda: Yes, me too, I expected the revelation about Snape to be a bigger deal :-). However, don't forget that Harry finds out truth about Snape at the same time that he finds out that he (Harry, not Snape) is a Horcrux and needs to die. Finding out you only have half an hour left to live kind of puts everything else in perspective, do you agree? Snape's secrets don't seem *that* shocking anymore :-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 24 22:00:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:00:48 -0000 Subject: Tolerance and the theme of HP was Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178430 Carol: > Moreover, and this is my main point in this post, "tolerance" is not > the only important theme or motif, particularly in relation to > Dumbledore (whose chief temptation is power and who is also tempted > for all the wrong reasons to bring back, first, his parents, and > later, Ariana, from the dead). > Certainly, he felt guilt and remorse for Arizna's death, but how > would that lead to tolerance for Muggles? Maybe having a Muggle-born > mother had something to do with it, but Kendra was not an ideal > mother, and she's the one who hid Ariana in the first place after the > incident with the Muggle boys. Am I missing something? > Pippin: IMO, in recognizing that it was his arrogance that led to his infatuation with Grindelwald's ideas, Dumbledore came to realize that it was arrogance to think he could improve wizard-Muggle relations while knowing little of Muggles themselves. Like Harry, when he came to know those he had feared and distrusted better, he could not help but find things to admire. DH is the book in which, IMO, the disparate themes of canon are united in the central theme of Harry's growing-up. Harry's great faults are anger and arrogance, and they are shown in this book to be at the root of bigotry and intolerance, as well as the chief obstacles to Harry's own maturity. To become "Master of Death" (which should be understood also as "Master of Life" ) as dying and living are one, Harry has to overcome those faults. The story-within-a-story of The Three Brothers may show us how the themes fit together. Rowling's "Tale of Three Brothers" could be considered a disguised retelling of a nursery favorite: "The Three Little Pigs." In the traditional version of this story, two of the little pigs, like two of the brothers, fail to protect themselves from death, but the third pig succeeds. As his fear of the future leads the first brother to ask for a wand that is unbeatable, so Voldemort becomes obsessed with the prophecy and the wand that will make sure he cannot be defeated. But the prophecy and the Elder Wand prove to be as inadequate as a house of straw. The second brother, aching for a past that can never be regained, resembles both Snape and Dumbledore in his inability to find love in the present. Dumbledore explains that he was wrong to want to drag back those who were at peace. And this desire to rearrange things is echoed also by Voldemort. "It troubled him...and those things that troubled Lord Voldemort needed to be rearranged..." The second brother, like Snape and Dumbledore, is arrogant. Arrogance too proves to be no better defense against death's ability to re-arrange our lives than a house of sticks, nor can the Resurrection Stone defend one from the pain of loss. It is this desire to rearrange things, along with the anger fuelled by old hurts, which we discover when we learn what drives bigotry in the wizarding world. Tied to it is a fundamental insecurity about the ability to be loved, which makes not only the villains but even the great Albus Dumbledore susceptible to the temptations of power. For those who lack the security of knowing they are loved, it is natural to seek consolation in power, and inevitable to want things rearranged so that power is attainable. Snape and Dumbledore are able to recognize and subliminate their urge for power in the desire for love, but their desire to rearrange the world so that the thing they want to love is available to them is their eventual undoing. The third brother is of course represented by Harry, and his wise choice by the invisibility cloak, which defends against death as the house of bricks defended the third little pig. When Harry attempts to use the Invisibility Cloak in anger or arrogance, he always gives himself away-- outside the Shrieking Shack when he starts throwing mud at Draco and the cloak slips, or in the train compartment when he attempts to spy on Draco, or on the Astronomy Tower where he leaves it after arranging the rescue of Norbert. It offers protection only to those who watch and wait, who can restrain their desire to fight or to disturb others in rearrange things to suit themselves. When Harry decides not to go after the Elder Wand, and later sets both it and the Stone aside forever, it symbolizes his victory over his anger and arrogance, as well as his ability to live fully in the present. He knows then that he will gain security not as the child hopes, by subliminating himself entirely to his parents' will and keeping his birth family intact forever, but by forming a new family of his own. Harry relinquishes his fears for the future, giving Albus Severus knowledge, but leaving him the freedom to make his own choices, without attempting to manipulate his choices as Harry was manipulated by Dumbledore and Snape. And Harry is no longer troubled by the scars of the past. Pippin From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Oct 24 22:11:36 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:11:36 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Does anyone else see > a gap or disconnect between the young Dumbledore, both before and > after the two-month friendship/infatuation with GG and his ideas, and > the older Dumbledore, whom we see at his youngest with Tom Riddle in > HBP? Mus responds: Yes, you're right - there's a considerable disconnect there. It's almost as if he's swung from one end of the prejudicial spectrum to the other - the Dumbledore of Harry's ear claims to privilege Muggles more than any other character we meet, far more so than Arthur. In fact, Dumbledore seems to be saying, with every fibre of his being "Some of my best friends are Muggles". If so, then it's worth asking if he has really changed his mind. I don't have the books to hand at the moment, but it might be interesting to look at how he interacts with Muggles when we see it (rather than just accepting what he says). Two scenes come to mind - the beginning of HBP with the Dursleys and the head-butting glasses, and the Pensieve meeting with the manager of the orphanage later in the same book. Both of them, curiously, involve alcohol pressed on Muggles. You know, suddenly I don't like this (and I'm reminded of Rohypnol!Harry getting Slughorn drunk in HBP as well, which I found questionable). Arthur shows some respect for Muggle ingenuity - what Muggliana does Dumbledore reference? Bowling, sweets, knitting patterns, possibly the Underground, chamber music - and usually to deflect the conversation from something else. He's using his Mugglophilia to project an particular image of himself which is at least evasive. Could it deliberately false? Had I my books to hand, there'd be doubtless much more canon. Drat. Mus, who simply must stop forming neologisms containing "Muggl-". From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 22:14:15 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:14:15 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178432 zanooda: Yes, me too, I expected the revelation about Snape to be a bigger deal :-). However, don't forget that Harry finds out truth about Snape at the same time that he finds out that he (Harry, not Snape) is a Horcrux and needs to die. Finding out you only have half an hour left to live kind of puts everything else in perspective, do you agree? Snape's secrets don't seem *that* shocking anymore :-). Tiffany: I think the revelation about Snape itself is pretty minor compared with the impact it had on Harry. True that only 30 minutes live puts things into perspective for you in a different light. However, I also felt this was when Harry's idea about Slytherins were redefined & Harry had his first real coming of age moment also. Prior to OotP, Harry thought that all Slytherins were pretty much the same due to his prior history with them, IMO. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 16:54:28 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:54:28 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <011f01c815d9$69126980$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178433 Miles wrote: > Everything else would be revolting for me. Is there any reason to > think that she does NOT include non-heterosexual persons in her > scope of tolerance? Del replies: Actually yes there is: there are no visibly gay characters in her books. She is obviously anti-racism, because she includes characters of various colours and ethnicities and treats them just like white caucasian characters. But we don't know that she's as obviously anti-homophobia, because she does *not* "include characters of other sexual orientations and treat them just like heterosexual characters". > From the first book on I'd thought that JKR would never say "no" to > racism, but "yes" to discriminating homosexuals. Ah, but there is a line between "not supporting homosexuality" and "encouraging the discrimination against homosexuals". While it's obvious that JKR doesn't encourage discriminating against homosexuals, I'm not so sure that she actually supports homosexuality as a normal alternative sexuality. She doesn't DO so in her books, at least. > It was always clear in my impression, that her scope of tolerance is > that of a typical modern, liberal, educated, and cosmopolitan person > - which includes acceptance of homosexuality as something normal and > neither "good" nor "bad" in itself. I disagree with the implied assertion you seem to be making. I don't see "acceptance of homosexuality as something normal and neither "good" nor "bad" in itself" to be inherently within the "scope of tolerance of a typical modern, liberal, educated and cosmopolitan person". And I'm from Europe. From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 24 21:31:10 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:31:10 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no/yes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178434 > Paula: > > Mostly just a lurker, but want to note the following, or re- emphasize it > if it's been said by others. The real canon import of the answer to the > question posed to JKR is the the relationship between Gellert and Albus. > That is, she might have answered the question by saying simply that > Albus was in his youth in love with Gellert, without saying anything > more. In that case, we would all be here still talking about how that > statement shows that Albus is gay, or some might say this relationship > says nothing about Albus's sexual preferences as a whole (because > sometimes teenaged crushes are not dispositive on the subject of one's > actual sexual preferences); but I also think the discussions would not > lose fact of the significance of this single relationship in Albus's > life to the whole story, which is: how this relationship affected > Albus's (delayed) response to Gellert's evil actions and how it shaped > his thoughts on love and power as an adult. This relationship is the > true canon news; this relationship explains a lot. Thank you, Paula, for an excellent point. I do think that Dumbledore's orientation (as revealed by JKR, and you're welcome to consider interviews not canon, but I think they are) has a ton to do with the story. DD's relationship with GG is absolutely central to the story. JKR says in a most recent interview that she knew even before the first book was published that DD was in love with (or infatuated with) GG. His defeat of the famous dark wizard GG was on the first chocolate frog card that Harry ever saw. (SS/PS, chapter 6 ) I agree with a previous poster -- that falling in love with or being infatuated with someone of the same gender absolutely does not mean you're gay or lesbian. Also, I know some of the straight people on the list have had absolutely fabulous, intellectually intense, emotionally close relationships with people of the same gender, and they're not gay or lesbian. Having said that, DD was in love with GG. Since I do accept JKR's authority on her world (not just in this case, by the way), I now look for all the clues that I missed and they are legion. (DH, Chapt. 18, pg. 356 where Skeeter quotes Bagshot, "yes, even after they'd spent all day in discussion - both such brilliant young boys, they got on like a cauldron on fire - I'd sometimes hear an owl tapping at Gellert's bedroom window, delivering a letter from Albus!" and p. 357, American edition of DH if you had not been expelled, we would never have met." p. 716 "how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me ..Grindelwald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution." The two boys -- one with long auburn hair, the other blonde and merry "roaring with laughter at some long-forgotten joke." p. 353. DH) So, DD and GG form a plan to take over the world for the "greater good." Fueled by hormones, and the first glorious feeling of falling in love (limerance, romance), DD neglects his brother and sister . GG and DD together become obsessed with the Hallows. After two months, Aberforth confronts them. GG puts the Cruciatus curse on Aberforth. DD defends him. There is a fight and Ariana is dead. Okay, DD is 17 or 18. He's fallen in love with the WRONG person who immediately abandons him. (p. 717.."That which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now sprang into terrible being." ) His sister is dead and he feels responsible. (p. 717, again DD says he had to "learn to live with my guilt and my terrible grief, the price of my shame.") His world is shattered and as he rebuilds it, I think he experiences a personal transformation of the kind that tragedy sometimes brings about. His father is in prison for attacking the Muggles who attacked his daughter. But DD becomes the champion of muggle rights, the advocate for house elves, he who seeks to ally with the Giants why? Well, obviously he has to rethink his whole life, and he has vowed to act differently. Like Cincinnatus, or George Washington, he turns down offers to make him Minister of Magic, and in part devotes himself to Hogwarts and its students, and in part becomes the champion of those fighting against the forces of evil. He is the leader of the first Order of the Phoenix, etc. Although it is now obvious that Elphias Doge was in love with DD (in my opinion), I don't know whether they ever had a relationship. It's really possible that DD believed in love, but not for himself, personally. He is reluctant to go to battle with GG. First, as a human being, he would really like to forget how blind he was to GG's evil, but he had no choice. People were dying. Would he be forced to kill the person with whom he fell in love? How awful for him ! Yet, he did go into battle, and he did not kill. He effectively removed GG as a force for evil in the world. And what about GG? One of the things that JKR stands for, and DD in the books stand for, is a chance at redemption. Hagrid gets a second chance (although he was really innocent). Snape gets a second chance. DD gives Lupin a job. Regulus turns away from LV, seeks to destroy the horcruxes, and is murdered. DD even tries to appeal to LV again "The time is long gone when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom..I wish I could ." p. 446 HBP) DD tells Harry that Voldemort's only chance for salvation is remorse ("Think, and try for some remorse, Riddle "), p. 741. says Harry in his final duel with LV. THEN, GG lies to Voldemort-- his last act before being murdered. Harry says "Gindelwald tried to stop Voldemort going after the wand. He lied, you know, pretended he had never had it .'maybe to prevent Voldemort from breaking into your tomb?" (p. 719) DD said "They say he showed remorse in later years " Notice the use of the word remorse again. What JKR says in her books is that even the most evil of people have a chance to turn away from that evil that people are complex..including DD and Snape So, question, GG had the Elder Wand. How did DD defeat him? Maybe GG couldn't quite bring himself to kill DD ? Maybe he remembered the boy with whom he fell in love, or at the very least, had a wonderful relationship with? Maybe there was some good in GG...he did show remorse at the end, unlike LV. Also DD's whole thing about secrets and lies -- I wonder if intolerance in the WW was the same as in the RW . Wasn't DD around about the time Oscar Wilde was imprisoned? Maybe he was closeted for a long time? That gives someone too much experience with keeping secrets, PLUS all the family necessity of keeping Ariana a secret. And so, for those who are getting disheartened at the level of intolerance on the lists, check out Andy's mugglenet editorial, the Leaky's home page, and their last Saturday night podcast, and http://www.borowitzreport.com. Susan From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Oct 25 00:46:27 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:46:27 -0400 Subject: Harry Potter, The Final Chapter or just the beginning??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178435 Or, she might take a leaf from Katharine Kurtz' book and open her universe to other writers. 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 bartl at sprynet.com Thu Oct 25 02:01:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:01:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter, The Final Chapter or just the beginning??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <471FF90E.9030800@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178436 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > Or, she might take a leaf from Katharine Kurtz' book and open her universe to > other writers. Bart: We've been through this before, but it bears repeating: Marion Zimmer Bradley tried this with her Darkover series. She ended up getting sued by a fan writer, and lost a couple of years of work because of it. It's a nice thought, but unfortunately, Lidofsky's Law states, "If it's legal, and you can make money from it, somebody's going to do it." Bart From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 25 02:42:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:42:59 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178437 Amanda wrote: > > Since I started to re read the books from the begining, I have noticed > something. She gives a brief glimpse that maybe Severus Snape was not > exactly who we thought him to be. > Potioncat: I'm looking forward to re-reading the series, but I don't plan to start until DH dies down a bit. It will be fun to read slowly, knowing what I know now and trying to remember what I thought then. I take it that you thought of Snape as "foe" all along. I was one of those who thought he was working toward some good purpose. It has been fun to read sections and catch the "tricks" that were played on us. Many of his worst moments have been "explained" by his fans---mainly JustCarol--and I'm eager to see if these explanations will hold up. Many of us thought that he and DD were working closely---almost as good cop/bad cop. Now we know DD wasn't working closely with anyone. From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 25 02:54:47 2007 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:54:47 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178438 Del wrote: > Ah, but there is a line between "not supporting homosexuality" and > "encouraging the discrimination against homosexuals". While it's > obvious that JKR doesn't encourage discriminating against homosexuals, > I'm not so sure that she actually supports homosexuality as a normal > alternative sexuality. She doesn't DO so in her books, at least. > I disagree with the implied assertion you seem to be making. I don't > see "acceptance of homosexuality" as something normal and neither > "good" nor "bad" in itself" to be inherently within the "scope of > tolerance of a typical modern, liberal, educated and cosmopolitan > person". And I'm from Europe. > Emily: I would also agree with you Del; there is a huge distinction between being discriminatory toward practicing homosexuals and supporting homosexuality as "normal". The church I belong to teaches that you are not a bad person if you have homosexual tendencies, but that it is immoral to act on them. One thing that I have noticed is that JKR did not say, either in book canon or her interview, if DD had acted on his homosexual impulses with GG. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, being gay is not all that DD was. I really don't think it has that great a bearing on the story. Take care, Emily From cinders at voyager.net Thu Oct 25 03:16:10 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:16:10 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178439 Everyone has been talking about the books being about acceptance, and now this big thing about DD being gay. Well, what about with people that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be more than just "the fat lady." Carol From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 04:37:55 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:37:55 -0000 Subject: DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? In-Reply-To: <008f01c81651$3e47e400$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Rita Skeeter's book. Oh boy on this one. Although we aren't told what was actually in it, it's a strong potential that DD's relationship with Gradual is indeed the bombshell that she was intending to unleash on the entire Wizarding World- that subject alone could have carried a whole book, don't you think? The Dumbledore no one knew...isn't that was her slant was? Allie: Dumbledore is SECRETIVE and SILENT about his private life. Does it really make sense that this detail was known, when nothing else was? Whatever his sexual orientation, and whomever his partner could have been, I do not think anyone ever knew. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 05:29:36 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, There is a gay ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <27806.40936.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178441 > bboyminn: > > But here's the thing, JKR didn't just spontaneously > burst out > with the idea that Dumbledore is gay. She was > responding to > a direct question about Dumbledore's love life. He > asked; > she answered. > bamf: Actually, she was asked if any of her characters were gay. Not specifically about any one character. THAT'S why I think she should have just left it alone. Unless you and I read a different transcript about what went on, the only thing the person asked was very general. Now, I do have to honor the listy elves and bow out of this conversation. Unless anyone can point me to DD's age, as I remember JKR saying 150, but have been hearing rumors to the contrary. The historian in me is curious, especially in regards to the clothing... bamf There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 05:38:13 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:38:13 EDT Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178442 Skipping the whole pedophile/teenageboyophile (whatever it's called) bit--which I find completely nonsensical, as I see not a shred of evidence in canon that Dumbledore's leniency with certain students is anything other than mere fondness of an adult for a child under his guidance--a lot of posters are arguing that there was never any canon that supported Dumbledore being gay. My question to those who protest based on this argument is...Please state the canon that supported Dumbledore being straight. Seriously, I want to know. And I honestly don't consider "no evidence that he's gay must mean he's straight" a reasonable argument. Some percentage of any population is gay (don't recall the actual number, maybe 10 percent?), so *some* students or teachers at Hogwarts can be presumed to be gay, even though we don't see direct evidence of the sexual orientation for 95% of the students (nor for any of the teachers except Lupin and Snape). So what actual canon gives us evidence of Dumbledore's sexual orientation? Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 06:20:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:20:42 -0000 Subject: Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, There is a gay ...) In-Reply-To: <27806.40936.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > But here's the thing, JKR didn't just spontaneously > > burst out with the idea that Dumbledore is gay. She > > was responding to a direct question about Dumbledore's > > love life. He asked; she answered. > > > > bamf: > > Actually, she was asked if any of her characters were > gay. Not specifically about any one character. THAT'S > why I think she should have just left it alone. Unless > you and I read a different transcript ... > bboyminn: In the Carnegie Hall Q&A, she was specifically asked whether Dumbledore had ever found love in his life. That opened the door to the nature of the love that Dumbledore had found in life. To my knowledge she has never been asked directly about Gay characters until this issue came up. Quote: "A 19-year-old from Colorado asked about the avuncular headmaster of Hogwarts School: 'Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?'" "The author replied: 'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.' The audience reportedly fell silent - then erupted into prolonged applause." Also, note that JKR tailor her answers to the age of the person asking question. Unfortunely the transcript of the interview is no longer available. But a kid asked her a question, in reply she asked how old he was (age 9 I think), then she responded that 'the answer to you is...' implying that she was giving an answer tailer to a 9 year old. The question about Dumbledore's love life was asked by a 19 year old. > bamf > > There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. > bboyminn: Too bad, nothing better than whacking a cat on the Snooze Button first thing in the morning. steve/bboyminn From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Oct 25 05:58:15 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:58:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? References: Message-ID: <00f101c816cc$08f5e010$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178444 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" > wrote: >> >> Rita Skeeter's book. Oh boy on this one. Although we aren't told > what was actually in it, it's a strong potential that DD's > relationship with Gradual is indeed the bombshell that she was > intending to unleash on the entire Wizarding World- that subject alone > could have carried a whole book, don't you think? The Dumbledore no > one knew...isn't that was her slant was? > > > > Allie: > > Dumbledore is SECRETIVE and SILENT about his private life. Does it > really make sense that this detail was known, when nothing else was? > Whatever his sexual orientation, and whomever his partner could have > been, I do not think anyone ever knew. Shelley: But that is the point, isn't it? That it was secret, that nobody knew, until Rita interviews that ONE witness who tells her, and then Rita goes on to make an entire book about it. It just makes too much sense to me, and fits why Rowling would even tell us of Dumbledore's love affair with Grindelwald in the first place, or even of Rita's book in the DH when it seems to unfinished and irrelevant to the rest of the story she tells in DH. Oh, and I have to apologize about that "Gradual" instead of Grindelwald. I don't know how in the heck my spellchecker messed that on up- I thought I had hit "ignore" for his name, but apparently not! From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Oct 25 06:36:16 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:36:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay References: Message-ID: <010f01c816d1$58d243d0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178445 > Skipping the whole pedophile/teenageboyophile (whatever it's called) > > bit--which I find > completely nonsensical, as I see not a shred of evidence in canon that > Dumbledore's > leniency with certain students is anything other than mere fondness of an > adult for a > child under his guidance--a lot of posters are arguing that there was > never any canon > that supported Dumbledore being gay. My question to those who protest > based on this > argument is...Please state the canon that supported Dumbledore being > straight. > > Seriously, I want to know. And I honestly don't consider "no evidence that > he's gay must > mean he's straight" a reasonable argument. Some percentage of any > population is gay > (don't recall the actual number, maybe 10 percent?), so *some* students or > teachers > at Hogwarts can be presumed to be gay, even though we don't see direct > evidence of the > sexual orientation for 95% of the students (nor for any of the teachers > except Lupin and > Snape). So what actual canon gives us evidence of Dumbledore's sexual > orientation? > > Julie Shelley: My very problem with your request is that logically, it doesn't hold. Just because we don't see it happening in canon doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It's a common mistake to make, but a very big one, IMHO. I presume you mean that you want us to show you DD ever kissing a girl or showing evidence that he liked girls as evidence that he was straight. And, in that, you won't get any because there are none to show you. Rowling didn't go into that. People just assume that because of all the general clues don't show any obviously gay tendencies in DD, then he must have been straight, or totally uninvolved what-so-ever (which still equates to straight in my mind). That is a reasonable assumption- to assume the author would tell us if any "unusual" things went on, and that if she didn't, that "normal" must have happened instead. But again, if you say that "we don't see canon evidence for ____, then ____ didn't exist", then you must think that Harry Potter and all the other characters must be full of (literally!) shit because we never see them taking a bathroom break to empty their colons, or that Harry Potter must smell really bad because we never see him taking a shower. Here's where we must use our brains and be smart about this. We see evidence of Harry being HEALTHY, and therefore we simply must come to a CONCLUSION that Harry did indeed attend to his body by using the bathroom, taking showers, brushing his teeth, and all the normal things people would do. Where canon doesn't specify directly, we are forced to conclude certain things. It's totally illogical to say that we shouldn't conclude facts that aren't told to us directly, for that leads us right back to a Harry who smells awful, with a full bladder and overstuffed colon. If we did that, he's be a dead Harry. No one could go 7 years of school without using the bathroom! Dumbledore's life is even less shown than Harry's, and so naturally the number of conclusions we must draw about him is higher than that we have to make about Harry. I don't see anything wrong about having to draw conclusions about Dumbledore's life, personally, as no author can tell us EVERYTHING. There's just not enough pages, and who would want to read about Harry taking a dump anyway??? Best to leave some things off the page, and let the reader use his or her brain power to draw conclusions. The character is assumed to be straight, average, ordinary, normal, until the author tells us otherwise. So it is a reasonable argument to think that DD did not have any unusual tendencies until Rowling points out to us just HOW Dumbledore was different. In this case, she didn't tell us in canon that he was different in that area of his life, so we have come to the conclusion that he wasn't. Thus straight, because that's the very definition of straight. I think the far more pressing argument would be to tell you to show us in canon how Dumbledore was anything different than straight. Shelley From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 25 07:51:26 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:51:26 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <010f01c816d1$58d243d0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178446 > Shelley: [snip, snip] > People just assume that because of all the general > clues don't show any obviously gay tendencies in DD, then he must have been > straight, or totally uninvolved what-so-ever (which still equates to > straight in my mind). Shaunette: nonsexual means heterosexual? how so? That is a reasonable assumption- to assume the author > would tell us if any "unusual" things went on, and that if she didn't, that > "normal" must have happened instead. [snips] Shaunette: This is exactly the point. It is normal for a significant fraction of a population to be homosexual. She didn't tell us that everyone is straight, which would be unusual. The omission of a description of this fact is not unusual for your average children's story (just like, as you say, the omission of bathroom breaks, which actually serves against your argument), but to assume everyone is straight is actually very silly because that would be so unusual in any batch of human beings. JKR's characters were real enough to her to have differing sexual perferences, races, etc. They don't have to go to the bathroom on-page, and they don't have to have sex on-page for me to assume that they do so in the various ways found in any population of normal humans. Shaunette, rather annoyed with how ignorant and narrow-minded this group has been over this. From "gay Dumbledore must have been hankering for Harry" to "how dare she explain her idea of Dumbledore" to "normalcy is uniform heterosexuality"...give me a break. I thought this was HP for *grownups*? From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 25 08:16:35 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:16:35 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178447 > Amanda wrote: > > > > Since I started to re read the books from the begining, I have noticed > > something. She gives a brief glimpse that maybe Severus Snape was not > > exactly who we thought him to be. > > > Allthecoolnamesgone Snape was the main example of this, but the technique was used on many of the key characters. My views of James, Sirius, Lupin and even Lily underwent major reappraisals as the series drew to its close. Dumbledore of course transformed from 'all-knowing', all- wise,benevolent grandfatherly figure to Macchiavellian chess-master. > Potioncat: > I'm looking forward to re-reading the series, but I don't plan to start > until DH dies down a bit. It will be fun to read slowly, knowing what I > know now and trying to remember what I thought then. allthecoolnamesgone I haver re-read the earier books post DH, with particular attention to PoA as that was the one where I had the biggest problem with how I remembered Snape has behaved. But it was amazing on the re-read to see how my view and memory of his actions had been wrong. Nothing he did was inconsistent with the final revelation that he had been on the side of the good all along. potioncat > I take it that you thought of Snape as "foe" all along. I was one of > those who thought he was working toward some good purpose. It has been > fun to read sections and catch the "tricks" that were played on us. > Many of his worst moments have been "explained" by his fans--- mainly > JustCarol--and I'm eager to see if these explanations will hold up. > Many of us thought that he and DD were working closely---almost as good > cop/bad cop. Now we know DD wasn't working closely with anyone. > allthecoolnamesgone. I ended HBP convinced that Snape was the consummate Double agent and had endless (well they seemed it at the time) arguments with my teenage son who was firmly in the 'Snape is evil' camp. I did however hope against hope that Dumbledore was not dead but would 'do a Gandalf' in some way. The Portrait was sufficient for his required role in DH though. JKR did do a marvellous job on Snape (until the end of DH)in that she did leave just enough doubt of his loyalty, even in my mind, to make the revelations of the Princes Tale,for me the climax of the books. I am still hurt at the treatment Snape got at the end with only the oblique acknowledgement of the epilogue, but on the whole my own musings, newsgroups and FanFics have filled the gaps she left. I hope you enjoy your re-readings. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 25 08:34:50 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:34:50 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ yes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178448 > Tonks: [snip] This series, IMO has the power to change > the world. But, NOW, if people won???t pick up the books or in some > countries won???t let it pass the sensors, what good is that? If you > want to bring someone around to your way of thinking, especially > when they are no where near it, you don???t start by hitting them over > the head with the most controversial point. You start SLOWLY. Change > can only happen slowly. Public opinion can only be changed slowly > over time. [snip] Again what Rowling did > was Stupid and harmful. She killed off half of our beloved heroes, > and not she is trying to kill her books. > > Tonks_op Shaunette: um, I'm pretty sure she's not trying to "kill her books". Just because her themes are wonderful and have the potential to cause bigoted readers to rethink their worldview doesn't mean she has some sort of responsibility to deliver the message of tolerance in the most airtight, effective way. Should she have not mentioned that Angelina is a tall *black* girl in canon, in case some people were picturing her as a member of the white majority and might not like their children reading about black people? Bigots aren't that hard to offend or alienate. By the way, some progress can happen quickly. Sometimes people need a good shock, a bit of a smack in the face to wake up, too. There are plenty of slow, gentle messages out there for people who are too afraid of certain ideas. And slow, gentle persuasion can easily be misinterpreted or twisted to suit any warped person's worldview. Personally, I don't think her goal was any of it, she wasn't trying to kill her books, she wasn't trying to shoulder the responsibility of somehow gently persuading everyone without offending any bigots, and she wasn't intending to smack people across the face with her thoughts on Dumbledore. She wanted the movie to be accurate, she answered a question truthfully and she shared an interesting and yes, (sadly) controversial fact with us. I'm disappointed that she didn't choose to put a bit more of a hint about DD and GW in the last book for us (I'm a real sucker for tragic love stories, myself, and would have had even more sympathy for Dumbledore if I'd known that heartbreak was in the equation) but I don't have trouble guessing why it was left out. Either way, I thought it was really neat that she'd always thought of him that way. Rowling had a story to tell; it's not up to her to convert the world to tolerance. It's awesome that she intended tolerance to be the big message nonetheless. Shaunette From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 05:21:40 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:21:40 -0000 Subject: Christian themes.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178449 So JKR has said that there are Christian themes in the books... I was thinking about this and wondered about the whole issue of Harry allowing himself to be killed by Lord Voldemort. DD was the great manipulator and I have a very hard time about this part of his character. However, he had to set it up so that Harry WILLINGLY sacrificed his life. If Harry had gone to his "death" thinking that he would not really die and actually he would be resurrected, then his sacrifice would not have worked. Isn't this similar to Jesus? In the Garden of Gethsemene he asks that "this cup" be taken from him, and on the cross he says "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?" If Jesus had known he would be resurrected, then his sacrifice would have not been as powerful. I'd like to hear others' viewpoint on this, since the list seems to contain so many Christians. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 05:15:27 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:15:27 -0000 Subject: More thinking about DD, Grindelwald, and Tom Riddle/then Molly/clock Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178450 A couple of more canon quotes about Gellert Grindelwald... ` and there on the window ledge sat perched, like a giant bird, a young man with golden hair. In the split second that the lantern's light illuminated him, Harry saw the delight upon his handsome face, then the intruder shot a Stunning Spell from his wand and jumped neatly backwards out of the window with a crow of laughter.' `It was the golden-haired, merry-faced thief, the young man who had perched on Gregorovitch's window sill, smiling lazily up at Harry out of the silver frame.' So.. GG was very attractive to DD... Yet, when he meets the next very attractive, young man who is inflamed with ideas... Tom Riddle.... Professor Dumbledore is not in the least bit swayed... He distrusts Tom Riddle from the beginning... all the other teachers liked him, he was quiet, diffident, shy, brilliant, fatherless, an orphan, etc. etc. "...for Professor Dippet was very fond of Voldemort and convinced of his honesty." (American edition HBP hardcover, p. 432) Professor Dumbledore advised against his appointment. Dumbledore had certainly learned his lesson. To those who wonder about why DD became an advocate of muggle rights, there are a lot of lesbians and gay men who extrapolate from their own oppression, and become champions of other oppressed groups. It doesn't always work that way... particularly among closeted folk who are consumed with self-hatred, and have internalized the idea that they are damned to hell, and disgusting because of their desires... they may then be the worst persecutors of lesbians and gays... (Senator Craig and Roy Cohn are good examples). After Dumbledore's traumatic experience with GG, he had to rethink all of his attitudes and viewpoints..... Vis a vis Molly... JKR says in her interview that one of the reasons she decided that it would be Molly who would defeat Bellatrix was that women who take care of children (like Fred and George) and who are homemakers are often underestimated...that Molly was an outstanding witch and a great warrior as well as being a great mother..... wonderful message... So, question... the clock. DD says in the HBP..she (Molly) may already know.. that excellent clock of hers... does anyone else think that Molly herself may have made the clock, as DD made the deluminator? Susan McGee From verysherryk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 06:55:18 2007 From: verysherryk at yahoo.com (verysherryk) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:55:18 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I mean there was "the fat lady". She never even had a name, > but I don't remember anyone having a cow about that, though > it bothered me all along. She deserved to be more than just > "the fat lady." I agree. Many of the more disagreeable characters have been heavy: Uncle Vernon, Dudley (although he did redeem himself), Aunt Marge, and Dolores Umbridge. Is it too much to ask for a positive heavy character, particularly a female one? I do concede she does throw us a bone with Neville-- he starts out the series as the proto- typical stupid fat kid, he ends up being quite the brave character. sherry k From nitharshini_kannan at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 25 10:35:31 2007 From: nitharshini_kannan at yahoo.co.in (nitharshini kannan) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:35:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: Warriors (was: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <715113.94807.qm@web7713.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178452 I never thought dumbledore is a gay I never expected at all nitharshini (nitharshini) From angellima at xtra.co.nz Thu Oct 25 13:05:44 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:05:44 +1300 Subject: Acceptance Message-ID: <000801c81707$c0ff8400$0301010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 178453 sherry k I agree. Many of the more disagreeable characters have been heavy: Uncle Vernon, Dudley (although he did redeem himself), Aunt Marge, and Dolores Umbridge. Is it too much to ask for a positive heavy character, particularly a female one? I do concede she does throw us a bone with Neville-- he starts out the series as the proto- typical stupid fat kid, he ends up being quite the brave character. Angel Lima His bravery reared about the same time JKR had stopped quipping or hitting readers over the head with just how gargantuan Neville was, but by then the Neville of the movies had slimmed considerably also...she must have taken inspiration from WB as she sure knows how to spin the marketing wheels...meh! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Oct 25 13:01:19 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:01:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay References: Message-ID: <002901c81707$22c07fb0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178454 > Shaunette, rather annoyed with how ignorant and narrow-minded this group > has been over this. From "gay Dumbledore must have been hankering for > Harry" to "how dare she explain her idea of Dumbledore" to "normalcy is > uniform heterosexuality"...give me a break. I thought this was HP for > *grownups*? I am going to waste one of my 5 posts for today, because I don't want this point to be buried in another message, and therefore missed. PLEASE AVOID NAME CALLING. Practice tolerance, that's been the message, right? Please do it for the others on the list. You may disagree with an opinion, but please respect that there is no Constitutional Right to be pleased with everything you hear. Keep it about Harry Potter. Shelley From angellima at xtra.co.nz Thu Oct 25 13:11:55 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:11:55 +1300 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: <000e01c81708$9e53ac00$0301010a@AngelLima> No: HPFGUIDX 178455 Shaunette: Shaunette, rather annoyed with how ignorant and narrow-minded this group has been over this. From "gay Dumbledore must have been hankering for Harry" to "how dare she explain her idea of Dumbledore" to "normalcy is uniform heterosexuality"...give me a break. I thought this was HP for *grownups*? Angel Lima 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! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 11:42:34 2007 From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:42:34 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178456 > zgirnius: > > Like Amanda, I agree that Snape was "one of the good guys". But I > don't regret the time and effort Rowling spent on obfuscation to hide > this. Combing through the series to justify my own gut reaction to > HBP (DDM!Snape) was great fun (and the reason I joined online > fandom). And the utter lack of any recognition by other characters on > his side of his contributions to the struggle until the very end when > the truth was shown to us, is a part of the tragedy of this character > which, for me anyway, makes his story all the more moving and > meaningful. Hi Again All this talk about Snape, one of my truly favorite characters. Undoubtedly he is a VERY complicated man. The same man who can reduce Hermione (Neville, too) to tears calling her an insufferable know-it-all (it's not Mudblood, but just because he chooses not to say the word doesn't change his way of thinking.) is also the same man, as pointed out, produces the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin, someone he clearly dislikes. The same man whom DD trusts with his life is the same man who can't put away his personal feelings to help Harry learn occlumency. Instead sees Harry as an extention of James not only in looks but attitude. JKR calls him a truly horrible person and yet is capable of love. And loving someone he is brought up to view as unworthy to like, or love or to associate with because of their parentage. And remarkably this love continues even in death. A feat not easily done as most move on to love again, Snape chooses not to. I stand by my statement that Snape is not a good guy. He is the Anti- Hero, a reluctant hero. ALL the things he does, he does FOR LILY. I think this is why Snape is so romantized by so many (including me, I mean really, who wouldn't want to be loved that way?). We see the potential for so much more and we applaud his deeds hoping that these things will really turn him around when I don't think they do. He does not do these good things because they are good, he does them for Lily. He does them because he told DD that he would and he is honourable. You mentioned the Unbreakable Vow. I don't think Sympathy was the primary factor in doing this, although I'm sure he was very sympathic to Narcissa and her fear for Draco. I believe Snape had no other alternative but to make the Vow. Imagine the scene without Bella. Snape probably would have convinced Narcissa he'd watch Draco without it. Bella was so suspcious of Snape at this point nothing would have convinced her but an Unbreakable Vow. It's hard to take someone's word when you don't trust them. In Killing DD, yes, to spare him pain and humiliation that the Carrows would have inflicted upon him. (or any other DeathEater. Ask yourself would you choose to be killed, If you had to choose, by a friend or foe? I would choose my friend, although I know my friend would have alot to say about this, like Snape did). And partly to save Draco from doing it. He didn't want Draco living with the scar of having killed somebody, it does something to the soul. Although it's hard to say whether or not Draco would have gone through with it. Clearly he found out it was not as easy as it looked. Would he have done it if he had an extra 5 or 10 minutes (an eternity when faced with a decision like this) or would he allowed DD to help him. I think this was something he feared even more. It's not in Draco's nature to trust anyone especially with his life and the lives of his family. I think Draco wanted to believe DD, but he believed in Voldemort's fury even more. A VERY complicated man indeed. That's the reason I love trying to figure him out. Kimberley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Oct 25 13:26:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:26:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance References: <000801c81707$c0ff8400$0301010a@AngelLima> Message-ID: <008d01c8170a$99ebac10$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178457 > sherry k > > I agree. Many of the more disagreeable characters have been heavy: > Uncle Vernon, Dudley (although he did redeem himself), Aunt Marge, > and Dolores Umbridge. Is it too much to ask for a positive heavy > character, particularly a female one? I do concede she does throw > us a bone with Neville-- he starts out the series as the proto- > typical stupid fat kid, he ends up being quite the brave character. Shelley: This argument was hashed out before, and I seem to remember people coming up with positive characters who were heavy: Hagrid, Madame Maxine, Slughorn. If you search the archives, you could come up with the full list. The full comparison also includes skinny people who were bad, so that if you look at the totality of who's on both sides (skinny and heavy), you can't draw the conclusion that heavy = bad, but rather see that there's an even distribution. From mjanetd at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 14:15:10 2007 From: mjanetd at yahoo.com (mjanetd) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > So, question... the clock. DD says in the HBP..she (Molly) may > already know.. that excellent clock of hers... does anyone else > think that Molly herself may have made the clock, as DD made > the deluminator? > > That's a great idea. I always assumed it was a family heirloom that the new owner could change to match their family. But I like this idea better. Janet From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 14:47:05 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:47:05 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: <008d01c8170a$99ebac10$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178459 Shelley: This argument was hashed out before, and I seem to remember people coming up with positive characters who were heavy: Hagrid, Madame Maxine, Slughorn. If you search the archives, you could come up with the full list. The full comparison also includes skinny people who were bad, so that if you look at the totality of who's on both sides (skinny and heavy), you can't draw the conclusion that heavy = bad, but rather see that there's an even distribution. Tiffany: I felt there were a lot heavy set good characters also, but it seems that most of them either are "bit players" or aren't as frequently seen as the others. I think that the idea of skinny being good or heavy being evil isn't very fair because there's an even distribuition on both sides of the weight issues. I think that on the whole of it all that JKR wanted us to look beyond the obvious differences & pick up on the major themes & issues behind them. At least that's the idea that I got when I read the canonical novels themselves. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 15:01:22 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <952122.34470.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178460 mjanetd wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > So, question... the clock. DD says in the HBP..she (Molly) may > already know.. that excellent clock of hers... does anyone else > think that Molly herself may have made the clock, as DD made > the deluminator? > > That's a great idea. I always assumed it was a family heirloom that the new owner could change to match their family. But I like this idea better. Janet ***Katie: I actually always assumed Molly *had* made the clock. She always seemed to be a clever witch, whose cooking and household-y spells were near perfect. I assumed, maybe because she's one of my favorite characters, that that household spell brilliance carried over into other areas. Incidentally, that clock is one of my favorite little details in the books, along with the leaping Chocolate Frogs and the mandrakes trying to move into each otehr's pots! Just something that deeply amused me. 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 gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 25 15:00:23 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:00:23 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > Skipping the whole pedophile/teenageboyophile (whatever it's called) bit > --which I find completely nonsensical, as I see not a shred of evidence in > canon that Dumbledore's leniency with certain students is anything other > than mere fondness of an adult for a child under his guidance--a lot of > posters are arguing that there was never any canon that supported > Dumbledore being gay. My question to those who protest based on this > argument is...Please state the canon that supported Dumbledore being > straight. > Seriously, I want to know. And I honestly don't consider "no evidence that > he's gay must mean he's straight" a reasonable argument. Some percentage > of any population is gay (don't recall the actual number, maybe 10 percent?), > so *some* students or teachers at Hogwarts can be presumed to be gay, > even though we don't see direct evidence of the sexual orientation for 95% > of the students (nor for any of the teachers except Lupin and Snape). So > what actual canon gives us evidence of Dumbledore's sexual orientation? Geoff: My suspicion would be none. Let me pose a thought. I am sure that all the posters on this group have many friends, family members, work colleagues, neighbours and meet folk on a day to day basis with whom they are at least acquainted. So - how many of those folk do you know to be gay or bisexual ? or straight for that matter? Not whose sexual orientation you suspect but which you know. Not all of them for certain. You don't start a conversation with "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Are you gay, straight or bi?" It would make for an interesting world if we did. :-) Someone has suggested that Dumbledore was secretive about his feelings. How open are any of us about ours? You may have a suspicion (if that's the right word in this context) as to the sexual orientation of some of this eclectic group I've mentioned above but unless you know a person well ? and they're prepared to open up, you cannot label them in any way. I remember having a close friend when I was in my teens who revealed to me that he was gay but only after knowing him for three or four years. It has been suggested that Dumbledore was an ephebophile, citing Tom Riddle and Sirius Black as evidence in addition to Gellert Grindelwald. But, based on canon evidence, Grindelwald and Dumbledore were close contemporaries when they met so it cannot be assumed that Dumbledore was specifically interested sexually in boys of that age. Any teacher has dealings over a long period with pupils who are not of adult age. Whatever their sexual preference, I would assume that they (a) realise and accept their responsibilities to the safety of those under their care and (b) don't feel attracted to every person within that age group with whom they come in contact. If that is not true, then we *are* possibly dealing with paedophiles or ephebophiles who, by the way, do not have to be gay, As far as I am concerned. I am not worried about Dumbledore's orientation. After the incidents with Grindelwald and the mistakes of his earlier years ? and also seeing him as being guilty of manipulation with certain individuals, I still believe that, for the greater part of the time, he was perceiving that he had a duty of care for the minors with whom he dealt. How he dealt with adults he had feelings for is, as I have remarked before, like Harry and bathrooms and toilets, not relevant to the story. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Oct 25 15:08:47 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:08:47 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. References: Message-ID: <00b201c81718$f20de530$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178462 Emily wrote: > I would also agree with you Del; there is a huge distinction between > being discriminatory toward practicing homosexuals and supporting > homosexuality as "normal". The church I belong to teaches that you > are not a bad person if you have homosexual tendencies, but that it > is immoral to act on them. Miles: Well, and this is discrimination, a bit more subtle than killing people for being homosexual (like in Iran), but still discriminating. "I'm fine with the way God made you, as long as you cripple yourself and don't act like you were created." How nice! My own church (Roman Catholic) teaches the same opionion, but I disagree with her - according to what the church teaches as well, the crucial instance for moral issues is my own conscience. But this is off-topic, so - just think about muggleborns under the rule of Lord Voldemort in DH. They are born as wizards, they can't help being wizards. They have to hand in their wands, they are questioned and prosecuted. They are not allowed to use magic. But, to use your argument, this is all fine and no discrimination, right? We see many muggleborn wizards still alive (those in Diagon Alley, begging for wands, you remember?). So obviously they could be happy to live, they are absolutely free to do what they want, as long as they do not act like they are - as wizards and witches. I don't want to discuss your personal beliefs, that's nothing for the list. But I really think that what you stated about homosexuals is contradictory to the message of tolerance of the entire HP series - independent from JKR's remark about Dumbledore being gay. What she did is, she made this clear not only to you, but to many people who now think she has harmed her own work. No, she didn't harm her message, she underlined it. Miles From Woodsy at Nova1.net Thu Oct 25 14:03:34 2007 From: Woodsy at Nova1.net (woodsy0914) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:03:34 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks WAS: I am so happy. There is a gay - Triumph & Tragedy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178463 Marianne: Me, too. And I see this in a completely different light. I think this could also be seen as Lupin realizing he has again fallen into the pattern he's always shown, which is to allow himself to do what makes other people happy, not necessarily what he wants or thinks is the right thing to do. Tonks practically lassoed him in the Hospital scene in HBP, and everyone else stood around, taking her side, and telling Remus basically that the way he felt or thought was wrong, that Tonks's feelings were right. She loved him, and he was bound to accept that and sail off into the sunset with her, only later allowing himself to voice his real feelings, that the whole thing was a dreadful mistake. AM: Thank you! That's exactly how I see it. I said in a previous post that Remus and Sirius always looked like a couple to me. Years ago it was a common belief that homosexuality could be "cured" by getting married and having kids (and no doubt some still believe it.) The gay person was pressured relentlessly to conform to society's expectations until he/she caved into it. He/She then had to accept living a lie and to make the best of a bad situation. IMO, after letting his true feelings out and being told off by Harry, Remus accepted his lot and tried to make the best of it. But he wasn't happy. AM From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 15:49:06 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:06 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: <952122.34470.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178464 > ***Katie: > I actually always assumed Molly *had* made the clock. She always seemed to be a clever witch, whose cooking and household-y spells were near perfect. I assumed, maybe because she's one of my favorite characters, that that household spell brilliance carried over into other areas. Incidentally, that clock is one of my favorite little details in the books, along with the leaping Chocolate Frogs and the mandrakes trying to move into each otehr's pots! Just something that deeply amused me. > > Katie Prep0strus: The one thing I DIDN'T like about the clock was that when Voldemort returned, it was always set to 'mortal danger' for everyone. Seems like a pretty useless item then. JKR is making a point, but... silly. Do we ever see it again after that point when it's acting in a useful fashion again? I'd like to think it could have an... internal thermometer. There are things that can be done to the body (by disease or drugs) that can 'reset' what the body 'thinks' is a normal temperature. Causing it to adjust itself accordingly. In general, the body has many ways it adjusts to differnet conditions - not always instantaneously. I'd like to think that the clock has this ability - or, if not, that as an item created by Molly (an idea which I like), she could reset it to be more useful - what was once 'mortal danger' is now 'normal' and it will only go to mortal danger when that is more imminent danger than the generalized danger of the world. Otherwise, it's a fun sight gag (if a big Big Brother-y), but not that useful in a dangerous world. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 14:53:04 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:53:04 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178465 Julie wrote: > My question to those who protest based on this > argument is...Please state the canon that supported Dumbledore being > straight. Del replies: There is no NEED for such canon, for two reasons. First, because straight is the logical assumption until being told otherwise. Heterosexuality is the largely majoritarian sexuality in the RW. So the rule is that anyone who isn't expressely said to not be straight is probably straight. Parallel: White caucasian is the largely majoritarian ethnicity in the British RW. So the rule is that anyone who isn't expressly said to not be white is probably white. Case in point: Blaise Zabini. Until JKR wrote him as black, he was simply assumed to be white. And nobody saw anything wrong with that, because that's the way characters are implicitely built up in books: if they are not expressly different, then they are "normal". So if DD is not expressly different, then he's straight. > Some percentage of any population is gay > (don't recall the actual number, maybe 10 percent?), so *some* > students or teachers at Hogwarts can be presumed to be gay, Actually, no. I just said that the rules of the RW can be automatically transplanted to the WW, but that works only as long as they are not directly contradicted by the content of the books. Example: racism is still a big issue in the RW, and multiracial couples keep attracting some level of attention, positive or negative. But it isn't so at all in the WW. No racial remark of any kind is EVER made. For example: Harry takes Parvati to the Yule Ball and later dates Cho, and yet he never ever gets any kind of reflection about "liking them tanned", or inversely about "making a good point", or anything. So it seems that something that is still quite prevalent in our world, racism, simply doesn't exist in the WW. So what about sexuality? Can we assume that what works in the RW still works in the WW, or do the books say otherwise? Well, what the books tell us is that there simply isn't ANY visible non-straight character around Harry. None. Zero. Period. No same-sex couple kissing in the corridors or bushes or dancing at the Yule Ball. No same-sex partner, present or past, mentioned for anyone. No character dating once a girl and once a boy. No *nothing*. Only one sexuality is EVER mentioned, and that's heterosexuality. Now, if the books were situated in the RW, then you could argue that this doesn't make sense. However, the books are situated in another world. A world which, though directly in connection with the RW, has been shown to be markedly different from it. So it might not make sense that only heterosexuality seems to exist in the WW, but it still seems to be the case. That's the way those books, this world, are written. We can even imagine rational reasons for why this is so. For example, we know that magic is genetic. Could it be that this gene also conditions a magical person to be heterosexual? But that's outside the scope of this discussion. In conclusion: 1- Assuming that there must be gay wizards because there are gay Muggles is normal. 2- BUT this assumption must then be checked against what the books actually say. 3- And what the books say is that wizards are all straight. 4- DD in particular is described as neither straight nor gay. 5- Thus, both normal assumption and the way the WW's sexuality is described make him straight. DD is straight, both by classic character building assupmtion, and because everyone is described as straight in the WW. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 25 15:56:23 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:56:23 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178466 Janet: > > That's a great idea. I always assumed it was a family heirloom that > the new owner could change to match their family. But I like this idea > better. Potioncat: But in one of the books, I cannot remember which one, Molly says something about not being clear how it works; and not knowing anyone else with a similar clock. I think it's when everyone is listed as being in mortal danger. I thought that it had belonged to the Weasley family. DD also had an unusual wrist watch and because we had a comment from JKR that DD's family was important, I thought there was a DD/Weasley connection. From cinders at voyager.net Thu Oct 25 15:04:23 2007 From: cinders at voyager.net (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:04:23 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178467 > Tiffany: > > I felt there were a lot heavy set good characters also, but it seems > that most of them either are "bit players" or aren't as frequently > seen as the others. I think that the idea of skinny being good or > heavy being evil isn't very fair because there's an even > distribuition on both sides of the weight issues. I think that on > the whole of it all that JKR wanted us to look beyond the obvious > differences & pick up on the major themes & issues behind them. At > least that's the idea that I got when I read the canonical novels > themselves. I guess my thing was then why did she never give the "fat lady" a name? If she is so accepting of differences, why was she always just the "fat lady"? And Duddley was called a lot of names, not by Harry, but by JK in the writings. Yes, Duddley wasn't a nice boy for a long time but the rude things weren't said about his personality, they were said about his weight. Carol From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Oct 25 16:19:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:19:02 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Acceptance Message-ID: <15124793.1193329142485.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178468 From: Carol >Everyone has been talking about the books being about acceptance, and >now this big thing about DD being gay. Well, what about with people >that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat >lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a >cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be >more than just "the fat lady." Being fat is never considered to be a positive trait in the books, but it is often treated as a negative one. The male Dursleys, Aunt Marge, Bagman, Umridge, and Slughorn come to mind immediately as characters whose weight was associated with their faults. Bart From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 15:57:52 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:57:52 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <00b201c81718$f20de530$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178469 Miles wrote: > "I'm fine with the way God made you, as long as you cripple yourself > and don't act like you were created." How nice! Del replies: Are you arguing that all people should feel free to act as they feel God created them? Or do you put limitations of any kind on that statement? > We see many muggleborn wizards still alive (those in Diagon Alley, > begging for wands, you remember?). So obviously they could be happy > to live, they are absolutely free to do what they want, as long as > they do not act like they are - as wizards and witches. Aren't they men and women first? Personally, I always saw them as pretty pathetic. Many people all over the world have had their entire world taken away from them, but they *bounced back*. Those Muggleborns are not prevented from going to make a fine living in the Muggle world for the time being. So why don't they? Are they so brain-washed that they don't even remember how to live in the Muggle world? It's not even like they are supposed to go and live in a world they know nothing of: it's the world they were *born* in! Think of all those emigrants who lost everything in their country of origin and emigrated to better places: they were jumping into a world, a life, a society, even a language they knew nothing about. Now that's courage. Just sitting around and moping because the big bad wolf has taken your wand is pretty pathetic in comparison. Del ******************ELFLY NOTE******************* Please remember to keep your messages on topic by relating the discussion back to Harry Potter. If the main point of your post is *not* HP, even if it *mentions* HP, take it to OTChatter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/messages or take it offlist. If you have any questions or concerns contact the List Elves at hpforgrownups-owner AT yahoogroups.com. Thanks, Zaney Elf From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 25 16:36:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:36:07 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: <15124793.1193329142485.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178470 >Bart: > Being fat is never considered to be a positive trait in the books, but it is often treated as a negative one. The male Dursleys, Aunt Marge, Bagman, Umridge, and Slughorn come to mind immediately as characters whose weight was associated with their faults. > Potioncat: Being fat is never considered to be a positive trait in RL, but it is often treated as a negative one. However, with that cheery note, and just off the top of my head. On the good side we have plump Molly and heavy Sprout. Slughorn can go either way (good or bad). Ted Tonks is heavy. The Fat Lady is shown as being brave. We have boney Petunia. Harry is scrawny which seems to be better than boney. Snape is thin. LV is very thin. I don't think I really have a point here....just a variety of examples. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Oct 25 16:49:38 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:49:38 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. References: Message-ID: <00f201c81727$08580a10$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178471 delwynmarch wrote: > Are you arguing that all people should feel free to act as they feel > God created them? Or do you put limitations of any kind on that > statement? Miles: Anyone should feel free to act as they were created or made or became, with the limitations we all have to face. There is no difference between homosexuals or heterosexuals, or between vanilla and strawberry icecream lovers. delwynmarch wrote: > Aren't they men and women first? Personally, I always saw them as > pretty pathetic. Many people all over the world have had their entire > world taken away from them, but they *bounced back*. Those Muggleborns > are not prevented from going to make a fine living in the Muggle world > for the time being. So why don't they? Miles: You blame the victims? Sure, without any school diploma or job qualification, they could just return to the muggle world. There still is a social security system in Britain, so they would not starve. They really should not complain! Now, Lord Voldemort really did them a favour to make clear they are just brain-washed. You are free to take sides of the LV regime in DH, but please, don't state that you understood JKR's message correctly. Miles From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Oct 25 16:28:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:28:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay Message-ID: <32851235.1193329713522.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178472 From: juli17 at aol.com >Skipping the whole pedophile/teenageboyophile (whatever it's called) >bit--which I find >completely nonsensical, as I see not a shred of evidence in canon that >Dumbledore's >leniency with certain students is anything other than mere fondness of an >adult for a >child under his guidance--a lot of posters are arguing that there was never >any canon >that supported Dumbledore being gay. My question to those who protest based >on this >argument is...Please state the canon that supported Dumbledore being >straight. There are numerous character details in the books which have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. For example, while we assume the Patil twins are of Indian descent from their last name, their ancestry has no effect on the story whatsoever (nor is the fact that they are twins; the fact that they are sisters has only the most minor effect on the story). For all we know, they are incestuous lesbian lovers, as well (there is certainly as much evidence of that as there is that Dumbledore is gay). Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 25 16:53:48 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:53:48 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178473 Del: > Aren't they men and women first? Personally, I always saw them as > pretty pathetic. Many people all over the world have had their entire > world taken away from them, but they *bounced back*. Those Muggleborns > are not prevented from going to make a fine living in the Muggle world > for the time being. So why don't they? Are they so brain-washed that > they don't even remember how to live in the Muggle world? It's not > even like they are supposed to go and live in a world they know > nothing of: it's the world they were *born* in! Think of all those > emigrants who lost everything in their country of origin and emigrated > to better places: they were jumping into a world, a life, a society, > even a language they knew nothing about. Now that's courage. Just > sitting around and moping because the big bad wolf has taken your wand > is pretty pathetic in comparison. Magpie: But isn't the point that there's no reason they should? I see no reason that any of them must lay down and die if they can't carry a wand, but just because you can live with something taken away from you doesn't make it a non-issue. There's no difference between a Pureblood using a wand or a Muggle-born; they're just arbitrarily told they can't do it when other people can. Likewise with gay people. Some people think there's some objective reason that it's bad for them to have sex with a consenting adult of their choice in ways it isn't bad for a straight person to--all things being equal except the genders. I've never heard anyone give me a reason for this that sounded reasonable to me, and that's why it seems like the same thing. The idea that Muggle-borns "stole" their magic is a made up false reason. People can pick up and move to other countries where they don't have the skills to be as successful and where they're outsiders and survive--that doesn't make evicting them necessarily right or okay. (Muggle-borns have already shown they're resiliant anyway--they made the switch to a new world at 11 perhaps better than a Pureblood tossed into the Muggle world would.) Or were you just saying, not related to the discussion, that you foudn those particular Muggle-borns pathetic in what they were doing? -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 16:59:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:59:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age (Was:Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, In-Reply-To: <27806.40936.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178474 bamf wrote: > Unless anyone can point me to DD's age, as I remember JKR saying 150, but have been hearing rumors to the contrary. The historian in me is curious, especially in regards to the clothing... Carol responds: I was going to answer offlist because there's not much info to make up a post, but I found that I had more to say than I thought, so here goes. JKR did say twice in interviews that DD was "about 150" (at least, that's how it was transcribed), but his Wizard of the Month card on JKR's website gave his birth and death dates as 1881-1996, which would make him closer to 115 (though, of course, she got the death year wrong: it should be 1997). If DD had a late summer birthday, which seems to be the case with his leaving school at seventeen and still being seventeen during his two-month friendship with GG, he would have died at 115, going on 116 (June 1997). That, of course, fits with Molly's Auntie Muriel, who several times gives her own age as 107, having known the teenage DD (or known *of* him through her mother) when she was a child than the "about 150" figure would. There used to be a link to the archived Wizards of the Month on Leaky, but they're still converting that part of the site to some new software or format or something, so the best I can give you is the text portion of DD's card from the Lexicon: "September 2007 = Albus Dumbledore 1881-1996 "Brilliant and often controversial headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Albus Dumbledore is most famous for his 1945 defeat of Grindelwald and his steadfast championing of Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived. Dumbledore's self-proclaimed proudest achievement, however, was featuring on a Famous Wizards Chocolate Frog Card." http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-wotm.html Carol, who thought of Buster Brown when she read the descriptions of Albus and Aberforth as children but realizes that Buster was created slightly later (1902) than the DD boys' childhood http://z.about.com/d/collectibles/1/0/8/O/3/busterbrowndolls.jpg From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 16:51:44 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:51:44 -0400 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: <1193311023.1193.69560.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1193311023.1193.69560.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9E53E75B846CE-14EC-9897@webmail-dd17.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178475 Shelley wrote: I presume you mean that you want us to show you DD ever kissing a girl or showing evidence that he liked girls as evidence that he was straight. And, in that, you won't get any because there are none to show you. Rowling didn't go into that. People just assume that because of all the general clues don't show any obviously gay tendencies in DD, then he must have been straight, or totally uninvolved what-so-ever (which still equates to straight in my mind). That is a reasonable assumption- to assume the author would tell us if any "unusual" things went on, and that if she didn't, that "normal" must have happened instead. Julie: What exactly?are the "gay tendencies" you expected to see? Floppy hand gestures, high-pitched voice, Barbra Streisand records playing in the background? How about flamboyant clothing--oh, wait, Dumbledore *does*?exhibit that one. In reality there are no set "gay tendencies" as those are stereotypes. Sure they do exist, but they don't define the gay population, which is as diverse in attitudes and actions as any other population. Still you are missing the point, which is that there were NO clues to Dumbledore's sexuality whatsoever. We didn't hear directly about any romantic relationships--though the closest one we could infer *might* be romantic would be the close one with Gellert Grindelwald, implying the possibility that Dumbledore is gay. (He had no other close confidante that we know of.) Harry, nor anyone else, ever formed any opinion whatsoever of Dumbledore's sexual interests or orientation from his words or actions. In the area of sexual orientation, Dumbledore remained pretty much a blank slate, and nothing in canon contradicts him being gay, or straight, or bisexual, or a eunich. We had no real clue in any direction (again unless you want to count the flamboyant dress and very close "friendship" with Gellert as potential clues, clues pointing to gay rather than straight). As for normal versus abnormal, it is more majority versus minority to me. The majority of the general population is heterosexual, while a minority is homosexual. No different than a majority of the population is right-handed, while a minority is left-handed. Minority doesn't mean "not normal" (except statistically, outside the "norm") in any?standard societal or? psychological definition (again as a standard, individual societies may differ in their own definitions for certain minority populations, whether others think it right or wrong to do so). 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 delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 17:20:23 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:20:23 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178476 Magpie wrote: > just because you can live with something taken away from > you doesn't make it a non-issue. Del replies: This I agree with. > There's no difference between a Pureblood using a wand or a > Muggle-born; they're just arbitrarily told they can't do it when > other people can. Yes there is a difference: Purebloods grow up knowing that one day they will use a wand. Muggleborns don't. Muggleborns have to be *invited* into the WW, while Purebloods are *born* in it. That's a major difference. If Salazar Slytherin had had his way, Muggleborns today would live their entire life not knowing they are wizards, and thus not missing the use of a wand, though they would suffer negative side-effects of it, granted. > Likewise with gay > people. Some people think there's some objective reason that it's > bad for them to have sex with a consenting adult of their choice in > ways it isn't bad for a straight person to--all things being equal > except the genders. Except that all things are not equal so this is quite a pointless exercise. > People can pick up and move to other countries > where they don't have the skills to be as successful and where > they're outsiders and survive--that doesn't make evicting them > necessarily right or okay. I agree. However, when it comes to equating Muggleborns to homosexuals, I must point out that the comparison falls apart on this point, because homosexuals were *never* invited into the "heterosexual world" to begin with, so they can't be evicted. They are in the situation Muggleborns would be in today if Slytherin had had his way: not part of the WW. Now imagine that some Muggleborns discovered the existence of the WW, and asked to be included in it, because they have magic too: this would be a much closer similitude to the current situation of homosexuals. Should they be included because they have magic, or should they be kept on the outside because (fill in reason)? We know the WW has had that debate for centuries. > Or were you just saying, not related to the discussion, that you > foudn those particular Muggle-borns pathetic in what they were > doing? Yes, that's what I was actually saying. I found *those* Muggleborns pathetic. Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 17:48:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:48:40 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178477 Kimberley wrote: > All this talk about Snape, one of my truly favorite characters. Undoubtedly he is a VERY complicated man. The same man who can reduce Hermione (Neville, too) to tears calling her an insufferable know-it-all (it's not Mudblood, but just because he chooses not to say the word doesn't change his way of thinking.) is also the same man, as pointed out, produces the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin, someone he clearly dislikes. The same man whom DD trusts with his life is the same man who can't put away his personal feelings to help Harry learn occlumency. Instead sees Harry as an extention of James not only in looks but attitude. JKR calls him a truly horrible person and yet is capable of love. And loving someone he is brought up to view as unworthy to like, or love or to associate with because of their parentage. And remarkably this love continues even in death. A feat not easily done as most move on to love again, Snape chooses not to. > > I stand by my statement that Snape is not a good guy. He is the Anti- Hero, a reluctant hero. ALL the things he does, he does FOR LILY. He does not do these good things because they are good, he does them for Lily. He does them because he told DD that he would and he is honourable. Carol responds: Aren't these last two sentences mutually contradictory? Snape's being "honourable" (a man of his word) has nothing to do with Lily, right? The vow to do "anything" relates to Lily, but keeping it has to do with his own strength of character (strong in that respect, however weak it may be with respect to holding grudges, in which he is by no means alone among the characters). Kimberley: > You mentioned the Unbreakable Vow. I don't think Sympathy was the primary factor in doing this, although I'm sure he was very sympathic to Narcissa and her fear for Draco. I believe Snape had no other alternative but to make the Vow. Imagine the scene without Bella. Snape probably would have convinced Narcissa he'd watch Draco without it. Bella was so suspcious of Snape at this point nothing would have convinced her but an Unbreakable Vow. It's hard to take someone's word when you don't trust them. Carol responds: But Snape had already agreed to kill Dumbledore for reasons that had nothing to do with Bellatrix and her suspicions, or with Lily (whom you argue is his only motivation for doing good). He agrees to kill DD to protect Draco's life and soul and to give DD the death DD wants--purely humanitatarian reasons, as far as I can see. And just allowing himself to be bound by an Unbreakable Vow (the stated purpose of which was to protect Draco) puts his life on the line--an act of enormous courage that he takes as a calculated risk (we see him pausing before agreeing to take it, with that inscrutable expression on his face). Where in any of this is Lily? > Kimberley: > In Killing DD, yes, to spare him pain and humiliation that the > Carrows would have inflicted upon him. (or any other DeathEater. Ask > yourself would you choose to be killed, If you had to choose, by a > friend or foe? I would choose my friend, although I know my friend > would have alot to say about this, like Snape did). And partly to > save Draco from doing it. He didn't want Draco living with the scar > of having killed somebody, it does something to the soul. Carol: Exactly. snape's love for Lily certainly prompted his initial remorse and his desperate promise to do "anything," but he has come a long way from that desperate and anguished young man. Kimberley: > A VERY complicated man indeed. That's the reason I love trying to figure him out. Carol: And yet you seem to be presenting him uncomplicated by saying that he did everything for Lily. He continues to protect Harry even after he knows that he and DD aren't doing it for Lily, that Harry will have to sacrifice himself in the end. (He doesn't know, of course, that Harry is likely to survive.) He saves Katie Bell and Draco in HBP and prolongs DD's life, scolding him for putting on a cursed ring and not calling for his (Snape's) aid sooner. Nothing to do with Lily. He saves Lupin's life (the Sectumsempra misses the DE's hand, but it still prevents the DE from killing Lupin, apparently because he has to swerve out of the way of Snape's curse), and even before the HBP incidents, he tells DD that lately, he has only watched those people die that he could not save. None of it has anything to do with Lily except perhaps that he hopes to atone for his role in her death by saving others. Certainly, he never states that motive. I'm not denying the bad side of Snape (though I don't recall his "know-it-all" remark reducing Hermione to tears--it was his supremely unkind "I see no difference" that did that. In general, Hermione seems to respect him and does extremely well in his classes. She also defends him throughout the second through sixth books. I'm not denying that Snape became a DE or that he revealed the Prophecy or that he was sarcastic and unfair and (except with a few characters, such as Narcissa and Dumbledore, the only person to whom he could speak freely) generally unpleasant (though I, personally, enjoy his sarcasm, especially to Umbridge, Bellatrix, and Wormtail, and his indirect methods of getting bad characters, such as Crabbe, to do what he wants them to do without giving away his loyalties). "The Prince's Tale" focuses on his relationships with Lily and Dumbledore because those are the relationships that will help Harry to understand and trust his message, even though he himself is dead. But it's not all there is to Snape. His other actions, especially the lives he saves that have no direct connection with Harry or Lily, show that he is indeed complex, motivated by something resembling principle or at least a desire to do good, to serve the cause of right despite his knowledge that DD is using him, and despite whatever inclinations in his own personality and upbringing prompt him toward evil. Carol, for whom Snape will always be JKR's greatest creation regardless of what she (JKR) says about him From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Oct 25 17:54:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:54:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance Message-ID: <21851258.1193334849209.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178478 Shelley: >This argument was hashed out before, and I seem to remember people coming up >with positive characters who were heavy: >Hagrid, Madame Maxine, Slughorn. If you search the archives, you could come >up with the full list. Bart: Hagrid and Madame Maxine were not fat, just large (they were half-giant). Slughorn was a mixture of tendencies, but his weight was associated with his self-indulgence, generally considered to be a negative characteristic. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 17:55:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:55:21 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mjanetd" wrote: "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > > > So, question... the clock. DD says in the HBP..she (Molly) may already know.. that excellent clock of hers... does anyone else think that Molly herself may have made the clock, as DD made the deluminator? > > > > Janet replied: > That's a great idea. I always assumed it was a family heirloom that the new owner could change to match their family. But I like this idea better. Carol responds: Unfortunately, this idea is somewhat undermined by Molly's wondering in HBP whether hers is the only clock of its kind and whether the hands of those other clocks would also point to Mortal Peril because everyone in the WW is in danger (which makes me wonder why she's still bothering to carry it around with her since it's only useful if it moves to Mortal Peril from some other position. Also, FWIW, the clock is depicted as a grandfather clock in other books and now suddenly she's carrying it around in a laundry basket.) Carol, who liked that clock and hoped it would play a more significant role From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 18:09:20 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:09:20 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "verysherryk" wrote: > >Is it too much to ask for a positive heavy > character, particularly a female one? I do concede she does throw > us a bone with Neville-- he starts out the series as the proto- > typical stupid fat kid, he ends up being quite the brave character. > > sherry k > Allie: Professor Sprout. (Sorry elves for the one-sentence post) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 18:11:07 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:11:07 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178481 Carol responds: Unfortunately, this idea is somewhat undermined by Molly's wondering in HBP whether hers is the only clock of its kind and whether the hands of those other clocks would also point to Mortal Peril because everyone in the WW is in danger (which makes me wonder why she's still bothering to carry it around with her since it's only useful if it moves to Mortal Peril from some other position. Also, FWIW, the clock is depicted as a grandfather clock in other books and now suddenly she's carrying it around in a laundry basket.) Carol, who liked that clock and hoped it would play a more significant role Tiffany: I agree that the clock could've played a bigger role in HBP than it did, same with it in all the other books it appeared in. I didn't think anything of the size of the clock until it was small enough to be transported in a laundry basket. My parents have a grandfather clock at their place & fitting that into a laundry basket would be a tall task, with or without magic used. I agree the clock seemed to not be used to its full potential as a powerful tool in the WW & at Hogwarts, especially. However, I think that the hands on it are more significant than other clocks. It seemed that JKR didn't know how to effectively use the clock a lot in the novels. From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 18:16:47 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:16:47 -0700 Subject: Rowling on the Dumbledore announcement Message-ID: <67984E93745A43E2AB2C9BBB4FD94639@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178482 J. K. Rowling said more about Dumbledore at her appearance in Toronto. >From a Reuters article (http://preview.tinyurl.com/23p227): J.K. Rowling, whose Harry Potter series made her the first billionaire author, said on Tuesday she was surprised at the fuss surrounding her announcement the boy wizard's head teacher, Albus Dumbledore, was gay. "It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could love other men," Rowling told a news conference in Toronto, where she is attending an authors' festival. Rowling, a mother-of-three, made the surprise revelation in New York on Friday, during her first U.S. tour in seven years. She said Dumbledore was once infatuated with the winsome wizard Gellert Grindelwald, but the two became rivals when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark than the good arts. Dumbledore went on to destroy Grindelwald. Reaction has been mainly supportive on fans' Web sites, such as The Leaky Cauldron (www.leakynews.com), where news of Dumbledore's outing has drawn more than 3,000 comments. Rowling declined to say whether her "outing" of Dumbledore might alienate those who disapprove of homosexuality. "He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him," she said. panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 18:03:45 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:03:45 -0000 Subject: DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? In-Reply-To: <00f101c816cc$08f5e010$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > But that is the point, isn't it? That it was secret, that nobody knew, until > Rita interviews that ONE witness who tells her, and then Rita goes on to > make an entire book about it. It just makes too much sense to me, and fits > why Rowling would even tell us of Dumbledore's love affair with Grindelwald > in the first place, or even of Rita's book in the DH when it seems to > unfinished and irrelevant to the rest of the story she tells in DH. > Allie again: The sensational thing about it was that Dumbledore was close with one of the darkest wizards of all time, and at one time planned how to conquer Muggles for the greater good. If the sensational thing was truly supposed to be DD's sexual orientation, it would HAVE to be in the book. That's way too between-the-lines for most readers, who do not dissect the books with the fine-toothed comb of the HPfGU list. IMO, the relevance to the rest of the story is Harry's struggle with his hero's past. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 18:57:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:57:37 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178485 Magpie wrote: > > There's no difference between a Pureblood using a wand or a Muggle-born; they're just arbitrarily told they can't do it when other people can. > Del responded: > Yes there is a difference: Purebloods grow up knowing that one day they will use a wand. Muggleborns don't. Muggleborns have to be *invited* into the WW, while Purebloods are *born* in it. That's a major difference. If Salazar Slytherin had had his way, Muggleborns today would live their entire life not knowing they are wizards, and thus not missing the use of a wand, though they would suffer negative side-effects of it, granted. > Magpie: > > People can pick up and move to other countries where they don't have the skills to be as successful and where they're outsiders and survive--that doesn't make evicting them necessarily right or okay. > Del: > I agree. Magpie: > > Or were you just saying, not related to the discussion, that you foudn those particular Muggle-borns pathetic in what they were doing? > Del: > Yes, that's what I was actually saying. I found *those* Muggleborns pathetic. Carol joins in: Are we saying his name now, erm, talking about the books now? I think Del has made an interesting point about the Muggle-borns, who suddenly seem to find themselves in a position like Merope's before her son's birth (except for the pregnancy, in most cases)--unable to earn a living or fend for themselves just because their wands have been taken away. Now Merope had some excuse. She seems to have been wholly uneducated and her heart was broken. She had grown up in poverty and knew nothing else. She had no self-esteem and few skills, and her looks might have been taken, in that unenlightened period, to indicate mental deficiency. But why would Muggle-borns educated at Hogwarts be reduced to begging in the streets (setting aside those whose relatives were being held hostage)? Lupin was unemployed and unemployable for most of his life, and he wore shabby clothes (which for some reason could not be mended by magic), but he never begged in the streets. Either his friends helped him out or he found some way to scrounge up a few sickles. (That battered suitcase labeled "Professor R. J. Lupin" doesn't quite fit with permanent unemployment, but, oh, well.) So why can't these Muggle-borns, as Del suggested, take refuge in the Muggle world among their Muggle relatives, at least till the danger passes, or even make a new life for themselves outside the WW? Granted, a Hogwarts education isn't much help toward a Muggle career, but they can read and write and do some sort of mathematical calculations ("I can do maths and stuff," Muggle-raised Harry tells Hagrid in SS/PS), and Hogwarts offers at least one Muggle-like course, Astronomy. Are they really that helpless? Why not Apparate to Muggle London, keeping their wands with them, rather than having it confiscated, and putting it to good use (even if they can't conjure up food or money) as long as they can do so without violating the Statute of Secrecy and being arrested by the new Ministry? If they have money saved up, it's still spendable in the WW. Only those with no savings would need to beg, and they could leave the WW before their situation became desperate. Just Apparate across the Channel into France if they don't think that Muggle London or Muggle Edinburgh is safe. A few Muggle-borns (Dean Thomas, Ted Tonks, and Dirk Cresswell among them) run from the Ministry rather than complying with the order to give up their wands. But the two adults, competent as they seem to be in our few glimpses of them (Ted is good at healing; Dirk is head of the Goblin Liaison Office and a former Sluggie, and they're able, unlike HRH, to summon salmon from the river and cook them) nevertheless end up dead, apparently because they lack Hermione's expertise in protective spells, and Dean ends up captured by the Snatchers, rescued, like HRH, Luna, and the others, by Dobby. Why are the Muggle-borns (other than Hermione) so helpless in this book? Is it just because JKR wants them to face a situation like that faced by Jews and gypsies and other "non-Aryan" groups in Nazi Germany? Even with their wands and a Hogwarts education, they can't survive in the wilderness without being caught by Snatchers or DEs? (Maybe Dirk or Ted or Dean made the mistake of saying "Voldemort"?) Thoughts, anyone? Carol, rather inclined to agree with Del that the Muggle-born beggars in Diagon Alley are "pathetic," and not in the sense of inspiring pathos, but not wanting to feel that way From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 19:01:54 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:01:54 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178486 Del: > However, when it comes to equating Muggleborns to homosexuals, I must > point out that the comparison falls apart on this point, because > homosexuals were *never* invited into the "heterosexual world" to > begin with, so they can't be evicted. They are in the situation > Muggleborns would be in today if Slytherin had had his way: not part > of the WW. Now imagine that some Muggleborns discovered the existence > of the WW, and asked to be included in it, because they have magic > too: this would be a much closer similitude to the current situation > of homosexuals. Should they be included because they have magic, or > should they be kept on the outside because (fill in reason)? We know > the WW has had that debate for centuries. Prep0strus: The wizarding world/real world analogy, which is apt when used to describe how a majority thinks it can control the actions of a minority that is doing nothing harmful is apt. The analogy falls apart because you are creating heterosexual and homosexual 'worlds'. There is no 'eviction'. We are talking about personal actions taken in 'the' world at large - both fictional and real. And, while you say the muggleborns would not have been invited into the wizarding world, homosexuals attempt to live in 'the' world. Unfortunately, I suppose, in this analogy, there is no other world for them to give their wands up for and return to. For the most part, though, your arguments have struck me as loathsome and offensive, so I prefer to focus now on the issue you bring up of Muggleborns never being invited to bear wands and join the world. That in itself is an interesting topic - because these muggleborns have exhibited signs of magic. Now, it is likely that many would go their whole lives not realizing what they can do, or being freaked out by weird coincidences. Maybe undergoing persecution. Perhaps they would have found little ways to control it - made a name for themselves as muggle magicians, even. What really seems likely, though, is that over time (though, and not meaning to be glib here... my argument stems at this point from the ideas of evolution, mutation, and natural selection, which may not be as accepted a doctrine on the board as I might have thought previously) certain individuals would stand out. They would learn to understand their skills even better, and recognize others with those skills, and learn, and teach, and probably devise how to make wands on their own. Or even learn how to control their magic without wands, with an entirely different device or method - the wizarding world for the most part really seems hobbled by their necessity for wands. And, can easily imagine, this is how it started in the beginning - whenever magic entered the human race, either at the beginnings of civilization, or later on, those early wizards had to come to understand and control their magic and develop into communities. Now, when these special individuals in the modern muggle world begin to do this, the difference is that a community already exists. Now, that community can be welcoming and accepting, or it could reject them. But ignoring them does not seem like it would work for long - the cycle would repeat itself until they had their own community, and likely were able to discover the existing magical community on their own. The wizarding community, could, I suppose, target these individuals and 'remove' them from society, I suppose. Murder of outsiders that challenge the status quo is always a possibility. But it seems more fruitful (and of the good side of humanity) to incorporate them into society, as they represent no threat as individuals. Only in the abstract could an argument be made for their threat, and one could be made for any individual. It seems the majority of people in the wizarding world should want to help these people, as we all hope the majority of people in the world want to help and care for other people. The ideas of exclusion and suppression exercised by Voldy's crew is of course reminiscent of any other totalitarian regime, and just as absurd. The idea that muggles could steal magic somehow... it's implausible even for a children's fantasy villain. And yet I see arguments as thin as it in real life that appear to be accepted by many, so perhaps I am naive. Perhaps the wizarding world has no obligation to help muggleborns - but has no authority to hinder them, or block those who would help them. The rights of the minority are a very dear concept. And when those rights do not impede on the rights of the majority, are sacrosanct. Live and let live... protections exist from true democracy so that when 51% of the population believe something, the other 49 aren't destroyed. I think the incorporation of muggleborns into the wizarding world is good for the individuals as well as for the wizarding world (and really, the muggle world as well). And after they've been there for a while, they're indistinguishable from the population. Good for the early wizards who decided to help those who were outsiders, but like them. ~Adam(Prep0strus), who appreciated Miles' original analogy for how one can think about a dominant group attempting to judge and control a minority group, and was fairly startled by an active defense of the dominant group's behavior. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 19:03:44 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:03:44 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: <<>> Muggleborns have to be > *invited* into the WW, while Purebloods are *born* in it. That's a > major difference. If Salazar Slytherin had had his way, Muggleborns > today would live their entire life not knowing they are wizards, and > thus not missing the use of a wand, though they would suffer negative side-effects of it, granted. <<>> ***Katie: Are you kidding? As I understand this, you are basically claiming that Muggleborns have less claim to the WW than do Purebloods. It is less theirs (Muggleborns) because they are *invited* into it, and should feel privileged to be so? To me, that completely is the antithesis of the books. I mean, that's Voldemort's argument, but I thought he was the bad guy... I mean, all through the books, JKR makes a real point of saying that people are *born* wizards, whether it's pure-blood Neville or muggle- born Hermione. Neither one of them is better or worse than the other. they both deserve to be there, learning and growing, and both of them have an equal shot at success. Among the muggleborns at Hogwarts, almost all of them are average or above average wizards (Dean Thomas, Hermione, Ernie MacMillian (was it him that was down for Eton?)). I mean, the acceptance of Muggles and Muggleborns is shown as a real dividing line between the good guys and the bad guys. Whether it's Hermione being called a Mudblood; Kreacher, Dobby, and Winky being verbally and physically abused; Ron being mocked for being poor; Lupin being judged on his werewolf status; Snape being judged for his looks; or Draco being prejudged because of his family ties...prejudice in all forms is shown to be wrong. This is the real hallmark of the bad guys, is their prejudice and bigotry. And their biggest claim is that Muggleborns don't belong. I would argue that JKR used these situations as metaphor for real- life prejudice, and that Muggleborns are the most obvious minority group. So, I am not sure if your point is that this is the way Voldemort felt, or this is really how you feel, but IMO, this is the absolute opposite of what the books are trying to say about Muggleborn vs Pureblood and also about RW prejudice. Katie From kathy.m.mandrell at pfizer.com Thu Oct 25 16:26:08 2007 From: kathy.m.mandrell at pfizer.com (kmmand2000) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:26:08 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I guess my thing was then why did she never give the "fat lady" a > name? If she is so accepting of differences, why was she always just > the "fat lady"? And Duddley was called a lot of names, not by Harry, > but by JK in the writings. Yes, Duddley wasn't a nice boy for a long > time but the rude things weren't said about his personality, they > were said about his weight. Carol > kmmand: Carol, I thought that she is not just a fat lady, but THE fat lady. You know, "It's not over until the fat lady sings". I guess she could have been named after Adelina Patty or some other singer, but then the gag would have been way too obtuse. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 19:25:09 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:25:09 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Everyone has been talking about the books being about acceptance, and > now this big thing about DD being gay. Well, what about with people > that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat > lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a > cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be > more than just "the fat lady." > > Carol > ***Katie: I have to say, even being a chubby girl myself, it never even occurred to me that there weren't positive chubby characters in the books. It certainly never bothered me. I rarely read books, see films, or enjoy any other kind of media that has main characters that are chubby, so I guess it never occurred to me. However, I do have to say that Neville was chubby - until his on-screen counterpart got thin, and then his chub was never mentioned again in the books. Prof. Sprout is also chubby and lovely...and I certainly never thought of Mrs. Weasley as a supermodel! So, there are a few main characters who are chubby and positive. But, honestly, it never bothered me. I am a chubby person who has never really had an issue with my weight. I am always about 20 pounds overweight and I am still active, never had trouble dating or making friends, and so I guess it's not an issue for me. But considering all the groups JKR *does* manage to include: black, white, Indian, Asian, Irish, Scottish, smart, not-so-smart, giants, Muggles, Muggleborns, Squibs, werewolves...I think she covered all the bases! Lol! KATIE From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 19:38:45 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:38:45 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178490 Katie wrote: > Are you kidding? As I understand this, you are basically claiming > that Muggleborns have less claim to the WW than do Purebloods. It is > less theirs (Muggleborns) because they are *invited* into it, and > should feel privileged to be so? Del replies: No, this isn't what I'm saying. Just because one group has to be invited into a world while the other one has always been there doesn't automatically mean that the invited group has less claim to the world. I do not automatically equate the practicalities of an action with its morality. Real World example, taken really off the top of my head: all those elite universities which used not to accept women among their students. Once they finally opened their doors to women, would you say that those female students somehow had less claim to those universities than the male ones? I assume your answer would be no, right? Just because a special measure had to be taken in order to let women enter those universities while men always had that possibility, doesn't mean that women somehow inherently had less claim. So it is with the WW: once wizards decide that Muggleborns should be taught magic, then Muggleborns have as much claim to the WW as Purebloods do, even though, in practicality, the Muggleborns actually have to be invited into the WW. So what I'm saying is that their right, their claim, is a moral one, but not necessarily a practical one. And this leaves room for 2 different kinds of problems, which are actually inter-related: 1- A change in morality. This is what happens in DH: the wizards in power decide that Muggleborns actually do not have that moral claim on the WW, and thus consequently, they expulse them from the WW. 2- A change in practicality. Imagine that somehow all the means of detecting magical people were lost (no more magic quill at Hogwarts, no more spell detection at the Ministry, and so on): most Muggleborns would then be prevented from entering the WW simply because the wizards couldn't find them and invite them in. In those two ways, they are very much different from Purebloods. And quite vulnerable. Del From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Oct 25 19:51:26 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:51:26 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178491 I hope you'll forgive my butting into an argument, but I think there are a few interesting points in delwynmarch's post about which I'd like to say a couple of things at unfortunate length, as is my wont. Apologies in advance... Novels obviously don't describe everything that happens to their characters during its duration. They'd be unreadable and probably unwritable if they did; however much of the world is shown, much more has to be implied. I don't remember "Pride and Prejudice" ever explicitly stating that it takes place on a round-ish planet orbiting the Sun, remarkably similar to one many of her readers would already be familiar with, differentiated only by tiny alterations to suit her novel, such as invented characters. Anyone wishing to argue that there are in fact dragons in the Prejudiceverse is onto a hiding to nothing. On the other hand, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Russia does exist. Implication and likeliness play a major part in describing the world a novel takes place in. Now implication works well enough for physical things. What about intangible ones? Does the fact that Austen never mentions Gaelic being spoken imply that it doesn't exist in the Prejudiceverse? Well, that would be inconsistent with the Prejudiceverse's close relationship to the Realverse, and she has not explicitly stated that this difference is so. (If it turns out she does, forgive me, and choose something she actually doesn't mention.) Therefore, the text and the universe are at odds: the text is not a reliable source for determining what the world it takes place in is like. (Note that while Gaelic speakers are very tangible, the language itself is not. The same is true for homosexuals and homosexuality.) This does not mean that conclusions cannot be drawn from the text, however. It's fair to assume from Austen that Gaelic was not, or not often, spoken in the circles in which her characters moved. We can also draw literary rather than historical conclusions. delwynmarch wrote in message #178465: > Heterosexuality is the largely majoritarian sexuality in the RW. So > the rule is that anyone who isn't expressely said to not be straight > is probably straight. [snip] the rules of the RW can be > automatically transplanted to the WW, but that works only as long as > they are not directly contradicted by the content of the books. Ann: I do not think that this is so. There's plenty of evidence that the Wizarding World is *not* like the Muggle World. To take the most relevant, it's almost entirely composed of people who can perform magic, and it's in a constant state of secrecy lest it be discovered by the Muggles. MW rules *cannot* be transferred to the WW. A minor example: Muggle office workers have to live fairly close to their workplaces. Wizards can live *anywhere* and Floo/Apparate in. The attitudes to race in the WW appear to be much more relaxed than in the RW, as you point out. Draco apparently mentions Angelina Johnson's dreadlocks in OotP, and what he says about the Weasleys in Madame Malkin's in PS/SS might be construed as anti-Irish. But as far as I can tell that's it, from everyone. Much more important is blood purity, on which Draco is capable of spouting vileness far in excess. This is directly linked to the WW's security. In other words, I think it's implied that the WW is socially fairly liberal, as long as nobody threatens its seclusion, which is where most of its neuroses are located. (Wizards might not be thrilled at this liberalisation, however, and just see it as a necessary evil.) Consider how casually Obliviation is used, for instance; now imagine the RW government trying to make that legal. With homosexuality being a very low-risk activity in this respect, we have here another situation of the text and world being at odds, or rather, what's implied and what's explicitly stated being at odds. And as I mentioned Draco's insults above: if homosexuality is taboo in the WW, why does nobody use it as an insult? JKR doesn't mind showing Draco using racist insults, so why would she mind him using homophobic ones? Delwynwarch said: > White caucasian is the largely majoritarian ethnicity in the British > RW. So the rule is that anyone who isn't expressly said to not be > white is probably white. > Case in point: Blaise Zabini. Ann: However, one can tell what ethnicity someone belongs to by looking at them, and can be described by the narrator. That's not true for homosexuality. (No Elton John jokes, please.) Delwynmarch: > Well, what the books tell us is that there simply isn't ANY visible > non-straight character around Harry. None. Zero. Period. No same-sex > couple kissing in the corridors or bushes or dancing at the Yule > Ball. No same-sex partner, present or past, mentioned for anyone. Ann: Given that we're arguing about Dumbledore here, it's not surprising that we never see him kissing anyone around Harry. True, there isn't any explicit homosexuality in the books, but it's more reasonable to assume that we're not being told about what's going on than that there's no homosexuality at all. (Remember Austen and the Gaels?) The WW may have a different culture to the MW, but homosexuality is hardly unique to our culture, or even our species. In any case, homo- and heterosexuality are hardly mutually exclusive options. Delwynmarch: > In conclusion: > 1- Assuming that there must be gay wizards because there are gay > Muggles is normal. > 2- BUT this assumption must then be checked against what the books > actually say. > 3- And what the books say is that wizards are all straight. > 4- DD in particular is described as neither straight nor gay. > 5- Thus, both normal assumption and the way the WW's sexuality is > described make him straight. > > DD is straight, both by classic character building assupmtion, and > because everyone is described as straight in the WW. Ann: The books do *not* say that all wizards are straight. This is in any case a circular argument, because we're discussing Dumbledore's sexuality. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "classic character building assupmtion" - that heterosexuality is normal? Finally, note that points 4 and 5 above are contradictory: if Dumbledore is not described as being straight or gay, how can you conclude that he is straight? Ann, who assumed Dumbledore was gay from DH From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 17:03:18 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:03:18 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <00f201c81727$08580a10$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178492 Miles wrote: > Anyone should feel free to act as they were created or made or > became, with the limitations we all have to face. Del replies: Then should LV feel free to act as he was created? Should Draco feel free to act as he was raised/became? Should the wizards feel free to take over the Muggles since they *are* objectively stronger than them? > Sure, without any school diploma or job qualification, they could > just return to the muggle world. They wouldn't be the first ones to face such conditions. Most emigrants are in that situation, except much worse because they often have no family to help them and they often don't even speak the language. > There still is a social security system in Britain, so they would > not starve. Precisely. Del From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 25 20:43:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:43:08 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178493 > Ann: > And as I mentioned Draco's insults above: if homosexuality is taboo > in the WW, why does nobody use it as an insult? JKR doesn't mind > showing Draco using racist insults, so why would she mind him using > homophobic ones? Magpie: If Draco's insults--one or which is *Pansy's* line, not Draco's, are considered anti-black and anti-Irish (I think that last one is a particular stretch) then Ron's "they'll be announcing their engagement any day now" about Percy and Crouch would surely count as homophobic. That is, *if* we count either of those--I don't think we should. Pansy's line about Angelina's braids (not dreadlocks) could, if she doesn't make a distinction about Muggle races, just be a mean remark about the girl's hair. Since we later meet Blaise and see that he's considered "one of us" by Pansy, I'd say that shows us that this is the case. Assuming that it is might be giving derogatory remarks about black hair more objective truth (maybe not the right word) than it actually deserves. In the Weasleys case I think we're on far shakier ground. The Weasleys are English, with no hint anywhere that they're Irish. They actually do have a lot of children. So I see little reason to assume that many children must mean Irish (or Catholic) in this case. In fact, to assume it must be so actually says something about our own real world prejudices, doesn't it? Because we're the ones saying that if they have more children than they can afford they must be Irish. Ron's comment, by contrast, is far more specific to what we're talking about in that he's describing a gay relationship in ways that Pansy makes no specific mention of being black or Draco makes any reference to being Irish. Not saying that proves Ron's line is supposed to be homophobic, though. > Ann: > Given that we're arguing about Dumbledore here, it's not surprising > that we never see him kissing anyone around Harry. True, there isn't > any explicit homosexuality in the books, but it's more reasonable to > assume that we're not being told about what's going on than that > there's no homosexuality at all. (Remember Austen and the Gaels?) The > WW may have a different culture to the MW, but homosexuality is > hardly unique to our culture, or even our species. In any case, homo- > and heterosexuality are hardly mutually exclusive options. Magpie: True, we just don't know the attitude towards it. Ron's reference to Percy/Crouch indicates "isn't that humiliating!" Since we don't see Ron responding to just same-sex attraction in itself we don't know if he's really just saying Percy/Crouch is silly or if it's extra silly because it pairs Percy with a man and suggests his devotion to his boss is emasculating because it looks like having a crush on a man. (I associate the Weasleys with some pretty traditional attitudes about dating and gender.) It's true we're not told there are no gay people, nor are we told Dumbledore is straight. But like with Blaise being non-white, that tends to be the default--this is also indicated by the fact that we're hearing the news that Dumbledore is gay now rather than after DH when even some of us who did think of DD/GG (I was one of them) weren't sure if the author wanted us to think that (whether or not that matters). It's still interesting to me that there seems to be certainly special considerations when it comes to Dumbledore and perhaps other gay couples if they do exist that we've got a very long list of characters we see showing straight attraction or being in straight relationships but with Dumbledore it's not part of his character (the way being straight is to many characters) or not relevent to his story the way similar straight infatuations are. -m From nightmasque at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 17:07:51 2007 From: nightmasque at yahoo.com (Feng Zengkun) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <125204.25533.qm@web52603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178494 Del wrote: >>>White caucasian is the largely majoritarian ethnicity in the British RW. So the rule is that anyone who isn't expressly said to not be white is probably white. Case in point: Blaise Zabini. Until JKR wrote him as black, he was simply assumed to be white. And nobody saw anything wrong with that, because that's the way characters are implicitely built up in books: if they are not expressly different, then they are "normal". So if DD is not expressly different, then he's straight.<<< Zack Feng (aka me) now: Isn't that the exact problem, though? That assumption? If JKR had not expressly wrote that Blaise Zabini is black, the assumption that he is white would have carried on - mistakenly. It's the same with Dumbledore, isn't it? Just because it's not expressly stated doesn't mean the default assumption is right. Just as interracial relationships don't seem to merit express notation in the books, perhaps there are homosexual relationships that also don't merit express notation. Yes, I also understand that there are statistics supporting the 90 per cent straight, 10 per cent homosexual divide, but I find this 'default' assumption troubling, particularly since the Kinsey reports have long since exposed this 'straight/homosexual' dichotomy as deeply flawed, to say the least. ****** Elfy Note, AGAIN ************ Potential Responders are reminded to keep your posts canon based and to NOT single out Off Topic points of another's post and respond only to that point. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 21:08:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:08:28 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > It's true we're not told there are no gay people, nor are we told > Dumbledore is straight. But like with Blaise being non-white, that > tends to be the default--this is also indicated by the fact that > we're hearing the news that Dumbledore is gay now rather than after > DH when even some of us who did think of DD/GG (I was one of them) > weren't sure if the author wanted us to think that (whether or not > that matters). It's still interesting to me that there seems to be > certainly special considerations when it comes to Dumbledore and > perhaps other gay couples if they do exist that we've got a very > long list of characters we see showing straight attraction or being > in straight relationships but with Dumbledore it's not part of his > character (the way being straight is to many characters) or not > relevent to his story the way similar straight infatuations are. > Alla: I am sure I have already said it, but I want to hear your thoughts on it, so I will say it again. To me Dumbledore being gay illuminates several things in the story, which was repeated as well, so I will not say it, BUT I also see perfect story line logical reason of why she did not disclose his sexuality at all. That is because **NONE** of the teachers' orientation is disclosed. Why should Dumbledore get special treatment indeed? I have no clue if Minerva, Sprout, Filius, Sinistra, Slugghorn straight or gay. No idea. I see it as teachers in old fashioned english school do not share stories of their love life with students. Why would they? I mean, Lupin's orientation is disclosed, but I think it is very telling that it is disclosed ONLY when he no longer teaches, no? Same thing with Snape, heeee. We only know about his love life, sort of, when he is dead and no longer a teacher. So, yeah, why the reason that students should not know about their teachers' love life does not make sense? I mean, could JKR make Dumbledore casually mention it? SURE, she could, but the fact that she did not talk about any teachers, who are teachers, makes sense to me as in it is not **proper**, as in not in the old english school tradition maybe? As I also mentioned before the fact that no **KIDS** same sex couple ever mentioned that makes significantly less sense to me, but with teachers I understand it perfectly. JMO anyways, Alla From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 25 21:29:54 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:29:54 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > But why would Muggle-borns educated at Hogwarts be reduced to begging > in the streets (setting aside those whose relatives were being held > hostage)? > So why can't these Muggle-borns, as Del suggested, take refuge in the > Muggle world among their Muggle relatives, at least till the danger > passes, or even make a new life for themselves outside the WW? > Granted, a Hogwarts education isn't much help toward a Muggle career, > but they can read and write and do some sort of mathematical > calculations ("I can do maths and stuff," Muggle-raised Harry tells > Hagrid in SS/PS), and Hogwarts offers at least one Muggle-like course, > Astronomy. Are they really that helpless? Allie: I'm sure they weren't ALL that helpless, but I can think of a lot of obstacles for the "wandless," as they're called. (Besides the fact that it's despicable that they should have to leave the world they've lived in since the age off 11. Imagine the frustration!!!) All of their money is likely to be saved in Gringotts Bank, which now has been infiltrated by Death Eaters, so it's not readily accessible to them. Anything that was hidden under the mattress, so to speak, is not in a form that's easy to spend in the Muggle world. They might get by at least for a little while by exchanging their gold galleons. The wandless beggar who runs up to Hermione-Bellatrix in Diagon Alley is asking about his children. If children are being kidnapped and held prisoner, I don't think their parents are likely to retreat back to the Muggle world and leave their kids behind. Plus, not everyone will have relatives or want to endanger these relatives with their presence. Not everyone who has been investigated is truly Muggle-born. Some of the people are likely Half-Bloods and Blood-traitors with little refuge in the muggle world. 11-year-old muggle education and high school level astronomy is not really considered satisfactory schooling for most careers. Most of these people would be relegated to low-level food-service type jobs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it would certainly be a step down for many. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Oct 25 21:32:22 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:32:22 +0200 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. References: Message-ID: <016601c8174e$8aff1540$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 178497 delwynmarch wrote: > Miles wrote: >> Anyone should feel free to act as they were created or made or >> became, with the limitations we all have to face. > > Del replies: > Then should LV feel free to act as he was created? > Should Draco feel free to act as he was raised/became? > Should the wizards feel free to take over the Muggles since they > *are* objectively stronger than them? Miles: If you compare homosexuals to pathological killers, I do not see a point in any further discussion. You might just try to reread my statement you quoted, though, and might understand it. delwynmarch wrote: > Miles: >> Sure, without any school diploma or job qualification, they could >> just return to the muggle world. > > They wouldn't be the first ones to face such conditions. Most > emigrants are in that situation, except much worse because they often > have no family to help them and they often don't even speak the > language. > Miles: >> There still is a social security system in Britain, so they would >> not starve. > > Precisely. Miles: Well, next time I will insert sarcasm tags. I do not like to compare anything to Nazi crimes, but what we read about the treatment of muggleborns in DH is very similar to the treatment of German Jews before the war. They lost their jobs and were forbidden to work in their profession. They were expropriated, many had to give up their entire fortune to leave the country. Others stayed in Germany, because it was their home. As many muggleborns, who stayed in *their* home world, these Jews had problems to make their living without a job, there might have been situations not too different to the one we saw in Diagon Alley. Now, you stick with your argument? I doubt, looking down at homosexuals might be considered ok within some groups in our world, but to kick the victims of the pre-Holocaust German Jew prosecution is a taboo... But I must admit that I never expected anyone would blame the fictional victims of Lord Voldemorts regime for their fate just for the sake of sticking to a homophobic pov, but I had to learn a lesson. Miles From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 25 22:27:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:27:51 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178498 > Alla: > > I am sure I have already said it, but I want to hear your thoughts on > it, so I will say it again. > > To me Dumbledore being gay illuminates several things in the story, > which was repeated as well, so I will not say it, BUT I also see > perfect story line logical reason of why she did not disclose his > sexuality at all. > > That is because **NONE** of the teachers' orientation is disclosed. > Why should Dumbledore get special treatment indeed? > > I have no clue if Minerva, Sprout, Filius, Sinistra, Slugghorn > straight or gay. No idea. I see it as teachers in old fashioned > english school do not share stories of their love life with students. Magpie: But you do know about Tonks/Lupin and Hagrid/Maxime. It's not all teachers we don't know about--or perhaps it's better to say it's just obviously that it's not a rule that we *can't* know about them. When Hagrid was courting Maxime, when Lupin (first introduced as a teacher and also in the Order, like both Dumbledore and Hagrid) gets involved with Tonks we eventually hear about it and nobody thinks it's odd. Alla: > > Why would they? > > I mean, Lupin's orientation is disclosed, but I think it is very > telling that it is disclosed ONLY when he no longer teaches, no? > > Same thing with Snape, heeee. We only know about his love life, sort > of, when he is dead and no longer a teacher. Magpie: But so is Dumbledore dead and no longer a teacher. (Technically he's never been a teacher, just a headmaster.) And Hagrid was a teacher when JKR showed him with Madam Maxime--and she was a headmistress. It's not expected that if we know a teacher we'll see them in any sort of romantic situation, but it's not unheard of. So Dumbledore's once being a teacher isn't any reason he can't have any romantic relationships associated with him. Alla: As I also mentioned before the fact that no **KIDS** same sex couple > ever mentioned that makes significantly less sense to me, but with > teachers I understand it perfectly. Magpie: Yes, with students I think it makes more sense just for background. With teachers we only know about relationships that she includes for some specific reason. This includes Lupin/Tonks and Hagrid/Maxime. Dumbledore's past relationship seems to be no less relevent than theirs. It adds something to actions of his that are mentioned in the books and also sets up more of a neat contrast with Snape. I think it's a shame we miss that last bit. -m From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Oct 25 22:11:45 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:11:45 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > But why would Muggle-borns educated at Hogwarts be reduced to > > begging in the streets (setting aside those whose relatives > > were being held hostage)? > > So why can't these Muggle-borns, as Del suggested, take refuge > > in the Muggle world among their Muggle relatives, at least > > till the danger passes, or even make a new life for themselves > > outside the WW? Granted, a Hogwarts education isn't much help > > toward a Muggle career, but they can read and write and do > > some sort of mathematical calculations ("I can do maths and > > stuff," Muggle-raised Harry tells Hagrid in SS/PS), and > > Hogwarts offers at least one Muggle-like course, Astronomy. > > Are they really that helpless? ****************** re: pathetic muggle borns... "My children!" he bellowed, pointing at her. His voice was cracked, high-pitched; he sounded distraught. 'Where are my children? What has he done with them? You know, YOU KNOW!'" p. 525. American Edition of DH. I started to cry at that point in the book - probably because as a mother I identified so strongly with that man. or Mrs. Cattermole about Maisie, Ellie and Alfred Catermole.. "They're frightened, they think I might not come home -- " "'Spare us,'" spat Yaxley. "'The brats of Mudbloods do not stir our sympathies.'" p. 259 DH There are lots of reasons that some Muggleborns might not be able to survive on the run or in the wilderness - just like the homeless-- what would they do with small children? Some are frail and elderly. Some might be physically disabled. Some might have mental health issues. They wouldn't have access to Gringotts....Someone like Mrs. Cattermole was from a family which probably didn't have much money... Susan McGee From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 22:57:02 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:57:02 -0000 Subject: Being Gay in HP/Pathetic Muggleborns (was:Canon citation requested... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178500 > >>Magpie: > > > > It's still interesting to me that there seems to be > > certainly special considerations when it comes to Dumbledore and > > perhaps other gay couples if they do exist that we've got a very > > long list of characters we see showing straight attraction or > > being in straight relationships but with Dumbledore it's not part > > of his character (the way being straight is to many characters) > > or not relevent to his story the way similar straight > > infatuations are. > >>Alla: > I am sure I have already said it, but I want to hear your thoughts > on it, so I will say it again. > > To me Dumbledore being gay illuminates several things in the story, > which was repeated as well, so I will not say it, BUT I also see > perfect story line logical reason of why she did not disclose his > sexuality at all. > > That is because **NONE** of the teachers' orientation is disclosed. > Why should Dumbledore get special treatment indeed? > Betsy Hp: Not Magpie, obviously, but this is as good a place as any to jump in I think. We do, actually, get some hints about various teachers' orientation. Trelawny is shown to be quite interested in Lupin. It's background and jokey, but it's there. Just as we get background make-out sessions between straight couples at the school. So yeah, it changes nothing, IMO, that outside of canon JKR made her "big" announcement regarding Dumbledore. If a gay kid reads the books ten years from now, he'll not get any indication that homosexuality is accepted in the WW. If anything, the WW comes across as more strictly straight than the Muggleworld, what with their old fashioned views and the gay jokes made by the "good guys". Harry strikes me as quite gay in point of fact (he's the one noticing Grindlewald's golden locks and stunning good looks, for example) but he's also very firmly in the closet, safely married with children by series end. So I wouldn't call the Potterverse particularly friendly to homosexuality. JKR's announcement doesn't change my view on that. > >>Carol, rather inclined to agree with Del that the Muggle-born > beggars in Diagon Alley are "pathetic," and not in the sense of > inspiring pathos, but not wanting to feel that way Betsy Hp: I totally agree. I mean, it's not even been a year and they're reduced to *begging*?!? From the very folks who took their wands from them? It felt rather forced to me and I found myself rolling my eyes rather than feeling any sort of pathos. > >>Miles: > > I do not like to compare anything to Nazi crimes, but what we read > about the treatment of muggleborns in DH is very similar to the > treatment of German Jews before the war. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, JKR laid the comparisons on incredibly thick. (Too thick, IMO.) But it's the speed of the muggleborns fall, the speed of the Death Eaters rise, and the utter lack of a viable underground movement that left me cold. It felt forced and fake to me. So it didn't effect me the way I think JKR hoped it would. Instead I saw yet more reason Muggles totally beat wizards down cold. (Yay Muggles! ) Betsy Hp From carylcb at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 22:32:24 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:32:24 -0000 Subject: Battle of Hogwarts date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178501 Does anyone have a good estimate for the date of the Battle of Hogwarts in DH? I'm guessing early May. Does anyone have other thoughts? Thanks! carylcb From klewellen at shellworld.net Thu Oct 25 22:37:40 2007 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: DD Gay? or just in JKR's head? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178502 Can someone explain why this really matters so much? By his own admission to Harry, DD had things in his life that he felt would give Harry cause to not respect him. Sure Rita hinted.. rather loudly truth be told that something there might have been sexual. And of course JK actually said I always *thought of him* as gay." Not that he was a flaming drag queen or something. My thought is...so what? You cannot live as long as DD did without experiencing the highs and lows of being human, no matter his ability. Frankly it all, DD's struggles and Snape's too for that matter just adds to the epic nature of the entire series in my view. Also, although perhaps this should go in another post, but did anyone ever consider that the narrator is is not flawed, but writing at Harry's level of understanding, I. E..the level of understanding of the reader given the book you are reading? Frankly all the focus on what DD did in his private live is rather over blown in my opinion. I always thought Gandalf the Grey was gay too. Karen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 23:46:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:46:11 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178503 Carol earlier: > > > > But why would Muggle-borns educated at Hogwarts be reduced to begging in the streets *(setting aside those whose relatives > > > were being held hostage)*? > > > > So why can't these Muggle-borns, as Del suggested, take refuge in the Muggle world among their Muggle relatives, at least till the danger passes, or even make a new life for themselves outside the WW? Granted, a Hogwarts education isn't much help toward a Muggle career, but they can read and write and do some sort of mathematical calculations ("I can do maths and stuff," Muggle-raised Harry tells Hagrid in SS/PS), and Hogwarts offers at least one Muggle-like course, Astronomy. > > > Are they really that helpless? > Susan responded: > > "My children!" he bellowed, pointing at her. His voice was cracked, high-pitched; he sounded distraught. 'Where are my children? What has he done with them? You know, YOU KNOW!'" p. 525. American > Edition of DH. > > I started to cry at that point in the book - probably because as a mother I identified so strongly with that man. Carol responds: So did I. But I made a specific exception for Muggle-borns whose children are being held hostage. I'm not sympathizing with the Death Eaters here. I'm trying to figure out why those whose families aren't in jeopardy don't just leave the WW. > Susan: > or Mrs. Cattermole about Maisie, Ellie and Alfred Catermole. "They're frightened, they think I might not come home -- " "'Spare us,'" spat Yaxley. "'The brats of Mudbloods do not stir our sympathies.'" p. 259 DH > > There are lots of reasons that some Muggleborns might not be able to survive on the run or in the wilderness - just like the homeless-- what would they do with small children? Some are frail and elderly. Some might be physically disabled. Some might have mental health issues. They wouldn't have access to Gringotts....Someone like Mrs. Cattermole was from a family which probably didn't have much money... Carol again: The Mugghe-borns we see begging in the streets are not identified as physically or mentally disabled, IIRC. And What would they do with the children? Take them along wherever they went. It's certainly better than living with them in the streets. Mrs. Cattermole, I expect, followed Harry's advice and side-along Disapparated with her husband (who still had a wand) and their children to some safe place. I thought about Gringotts, but I'm not so sure that they wouldn't be able to get their money out before they left. The goblins don't seem to care; they let Sirius Black have money from his vault, and he was a wanted fugitive. Nor do the wizard guards seem to be DEs (though I could be mistaken on that point). Hermione had a stash of money from somewhere (a Muggle savings and loan?), but not everyone would have Muggle money available, I concede. And we can't generalize about Mrs. Cattermole without knowing her. Her husband had a job at the Ministry, at least until the disruption that followed his wife's trial. He probably had some money in Gringotts. But we just don't know. Anyway, for the record, I was also moved by the scene in which the poor man bellows at Bellatrix!Hermione, asking her what LV has done with his children. It's obvious why *he* hasn't left the country. I had mixed feelings about Ron's Stunning the poor man to keep their cover, and nothing but contempt for Travers, with his reference to the man as "it." Nor am I sympathizing with Yaxley and his callousness toward Mrs. Cattermole's children. Obviously, the DEs are being cruel and unfeeling and altogether evil. But my point is that their victims seem more helpless than we might expect, given that they can Disapparate until before their wands are taken. Some few can probably ride brooms, which, IIRC, doesn't require a wand. It seems to me that the DEs and the Ministry have more power than is realistic in this situation. The Muggle-borns don't have to board an airplane to leave the country. Why not use their wands while they have them to stuff a few necessities (magically reduced) into a bag like Hermione's and Disapparate? And they don't need to live among Muggles if they don't have any Muggle relatives (despite being Muggle-borns). LV hasn't taken over France yet, and the Channel is narrow enough in some places (Calais?) to Apparate over. If Hermione has the resources to survive in hiding, why not other Muggle-borns? Isn't it unrealistic of JKR to depict so many people helpless and begging? If you (generic you, not Susan specifically) were a Muggle-born in that position, would you really be so utterly without resources that you had to beg in the streets? Maybe Adam (Prep0strus) is right--these wizards are just too dependent on their wands. But Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell had wands. Why did they stay in England? Why not hide out in France or Germany or Switzerland or beautiful, sunny Italy, all of which have Wizarding communities? And if they're going to camp, why not conjure a tent and put protective spells on it? If Hermione can do it, why can't they? It seems to me that JKR sacrificed logic to plot in depicting the Muggle-borns, particularly those two. Carol, not attacking Muggle-borns (sheesh! I'm a Muggle myself!), just trying to figure out why those who don't have family members held hostage don't just leave the British WW rather than begging in the streets From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 23:52:33 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:52:33 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Miles wrote: > > Anyone should feel free to act as they were created or made or > > became, with the limitations we all have to face. > > Del replies: > Then should LV feel free to act as he was created? > Should Draco feel free to act as he was raised/became? > Should the wizards feel free to take over the Muggles since they *are* objectively stronger than them? > Lanval: *headdesk* Ok, let's see. When LV 'acts', he HURTS people. When Draco 'acts' the way he was raised, by which I take you mean his bigoted worldview, he HURTS people. When Wizards 'take over' weaker Muggles, they HURT those Muggles. All those examples have VICTIMS. All can in one way or another be considered crimes. I believe that's what Miles meant when he mentioned the 'limitations'. Now, please do elaborate how your examples compare to consenting adults entering into a relationship based on love and/or mutual sexual attraction. Yes? Who's the victim? Where's the crime? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jane \"Panhandle\" Penhaligon" wrote: > > J. K. Rowling said more about Dumbledore at her appearance in Toronto. > > > > From a Reuters article (http://preview.tinyurl.com/23p227): > > J.K. Rowling, whose Harry Potter series made her the first billionaire > author, said on Tuesday she was surprised at the fuss surrounding her > announcement the boy wizard's head teacher, Albus Dumbledore, was gay. > > "It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could > love other men," Rowling told a news conference in Toronto, where she is > attending an authors' festival. > > Rowling, a mother-of-three, made the surprise revelation in New York on > Friday, during her first U.S. tour in seven years. > > She said Dumbledore was once infatuated with the winsome wizard Gellert > Grindelwald, but the two became rivals when Grindelwald turned out to be > more interested in the dark than the good arts. Dumbledore went on to > destroy Grindelwald. > > Reaction has been mainly supportive on fans' Web sites, such as The Leaky > Cauldron (www.leakynews.com), where news of Dumbledore's outing has drawn > more than 3,000 comments. > > Rowling declined to say whether her "outing" of Dumbledore might alienate > those who disapprove of homosexuality. > > "He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say > about him," she said. > Lanval: Amen. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 00:28:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:28:13 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178505 > Susan wrote: > So, question... the clock. DD says in the HBP..she (Molly) may > already know.. that excellent clock of hers... Mike: Actually, DD remarks upon Molly's "excellent clock" in OotP. Harry, Ron, and Minerva are in DD's office awaiting the two portrait headmasters to return from the MoM with word on Arthur. Minerva is just about to go get the rest of the Weasleys and asked DD who's going to inform Molly about Arthur's injuries. > Potioncat: > But in one of the books, I cannot remember which one, Molly says > something about not being clear how it works; and not knowing > anyone else with a similar clock. I think it's when everyone is > listed as being in mortal danger. Mike: It was in HBP. Harry has just been dropped off by DD and Molly is about to whip up something for Harry to eat. She glanced at her clock and that's when Harry notes all the arms pointing to mortal danger. Just trying to clear up a couple questions. From dama.silmariel at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:01:09 2007 From: dama.silmariel at gmail.com (marguerite) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:01:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56f2b65c0710251801w1f41eb93w8330a8458229d078@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178506 On 10/26/07, Carol wrote: Carol: > Maybe Adam (Prep0strus) is right--these wizards are just too dependent > on their wands. But Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell had wands. Why did > they stay in England? Why not hide out in France or Germany or > Switzerland or beautiful, sunny Italy, all of which have Wizarding > communities? And if they're going to camp, why not conjure a tent and > put protective spells on it? If Hermione can do it, why can't they? It > seems to me that JKR sacrificed logic to plot in depicting the > Muggle-borns, particularly those t Silmariel: Exactly. People flee in war times, if they can, why a full trained wizard couldn't? It's far easier to escape from UK by magical means than as a muggle, and the world isn't at war, it's just the UK. Another plot hole. I see where JKR wanted to lead us, but the fact is people as a whole of a wizard population never will be as defenseless as in a real population. They are trained, they have wands. It's like everyone is a soldier carrying their firearms, ?how could they be forced into submission so easily? Muggleborns are not a small number, I understand that a 5% of a population could be wiped easily, but they are a lot, more if you add their families. Why don't they fight or flee? They are wizards! Though I think it can be done, with enough time, resources, methods and propaganda, it isn't depicted that way, it's too quick, not enough state propaganda, not an step-by-step encouragement of genocide, we get the initial and the final stages of the show rushed up and ignoring the strength of wizards (muggleborns or not, full wizards they are, we sometimes seem to forget). It's only... maybe is just part of the background, she wanted to have a situation but not to explore it, something that simply works as a tool, like universal translators in sci-fi storytelling, because, after all, we want characters to speak to each other, and we don't care whether it's realistic or not. I think this case borders the line, she needed the 'weak' part of the population to suffer just like in real life people would do, so she skipped common sense, that would lead more to a 'guerrirras' war. Silmariel From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Oct 26 01:01:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:01:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47213C57.2060108@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178507 Katie wrote: > I have to say, even being a chubby girl myself, it never even occurred > to me that there weren't positive chubby characters in the books. It > certainly never bothered me. I rarely read books, see films, or enjoy > any other kind of media that has main characters that are chubby, so I > guess it never occurred to me. Bart: Well, my wife noticed it enough that it got her to quit reading the books in disgust partway into POA. Bart From yvaine28 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:15:21 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:15:21 +0800 Subject: Battle of Hogwarts date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330710251815p3f93497lef02f87cb4968aee@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178508 clcb58 wrote: Does anyone have a good estimate for the date of the Battle of Hogwarts in DH? I'm guessing early May. Does anyone have other thoughts? Meann: The Lexicon puts it at around May 1998 as well. :) ---*meann From yvaine28 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:21:57 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:21:57 +0800 Subject: Rowling on the Dumbledore announcement In-Reply-To: <67984E93745A43E2AB2C9BBB4FD94639@Home> References: <67984E93745A43E2AB2C9BBB4FD94639@Home> Message-ID: <5d7223330710251821g11d84943kb3537fb4360094b6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178509 panhandle wrote: J. K. Rowling said more about Dumbledore at her appearance in Toronto. >From a Reuters article (http://preview.tinyurl.com/23p227): Meann: I've transcribed the video for her press conference in Toronto for Accio Quote, and it's been posted here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html It's nice to be able to read exactly what she says because sometimes, the articles that come out in the press either misquote her or they don't really get the context of her answers well. =) ---*meann From kernsac at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:35:04 2007 From: kernsac at gmail.com (Peggy Kern) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:35:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Acceptance References: <15124793.1193329142485.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <015201c81770$70c23190$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 178510 Well, what about with people >that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat >lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a >cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be >more than just "the fat lady." Being fat is never considered to be a positive trait in the books, but it is often treated as a negative one. The male Dursleys, Aunt Marge, Bagman, Umridge, and Slughorn come to mind immediately as characters whose weight was associated with their faults. Bart Peggy now: Molly Weasley appeared to be a bit overweight, and it's usually presented as an endearing quality (except when Draco comments on it). And although it would be nice if The Fat Lady had a name, no one seems to think any less of her because of her fatness. Peggy From kernsac at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:41:58 2007 From: kernsac at gmail.com (Peggy Kern) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:41:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly's clock References: Message-ID: <015e01c81771$66ea8d10$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 178511 Prep0strus: The one thing I DIDN'T like about the clock was that when Voldemort returned, it was always set to 'mortal danger' for everyone. Seems like a pretty useless item then. Peggy now: I totally agree. And I remember when I was reading about how Molly would pick up the clock and move it from room to room with her, I was thinking, "She needs to get rid of that clock!" It just seemed to add to her worries, and didn't really give her any useful information. Peggy From penhaligon at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 02:52:15 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:52:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4025C9AAEE104648889EA6519D0FB17B@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178512 > Magpie: > But so is Dumbledore dead and no longer a teacher. (Technically he's > never been a teacher, just a headmaster Panhandle: I'm pretty sure Dumbledore was the Transfiguration professor prior to his appointment as Headmaster. See Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 17. Tom Riddle refers to " ... the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore ...". Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 02:57:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:57:48 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts teachers' love life WAS: Canon citation requested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178513 > Magpie: > But you do know about Tonks/Lupin and Hagrid/Maxime. It's not all > teachers we don't know about--or perhaps it's better to say it's just > obviously that it's not a rule that we *can't* know about them. When > Hagrid was courting Maxime, when Lupin (first introduced as a teacher > and also in the Order, like both Dumbledore and Hagrid) gets involved > with Tonks we eventually hear about it and nobody thinks it's odd. Alla: But that's my point about Lupin we only hear about his involvement with Tonks when he is **no longer** teacher, when he becomes fellow order member and to some extent comrad IMO. We have not heard anything about his love life when he was teaching. Having said that I certainly agree with Hagrid being exception from the rule, since it is cold hard canon fact. Therefore while I find Hagrid to be the **only** exception from that rule ( that we get to hear about teachers' love life), I do agree that if there is one exception, it is not really a valid rule in book universe - e.g if we can know about Hagrid's love life, why not Dumbledore's. > Magpie: > But so is Dumbledore dead and no longer a teacher. (Technically he's > never been a teacher, just a headmaster.) And Hagrid was a teacher > when JKR showed him with Madam Maxime--and she was a headmistress. > It's not expected that if we know a teacher we'll see them in any > sort of romantic situation, but it's not unheard of. So Dumbledore's > once being a teacher isn't any reason he can't have any romantic > relationships associated with him. Alla: I would say that Headmaster's of old english school would go to even greater length to hide his love life from his students then just a teacher. IMO of course and he was a teacher way back, no? But again, I concede that because of Hagrid my rule is not working. > Magpie: >This includes Lupin/Tonks and Hagrid/Maxime. > Dumbledore's past relationship seems to be no less relevent than > theirs. It adds something to actions of his that are mentioned in the > books and also sets up more of a neat contrast with Snape. I think > it's a shame we miss that last bit. Alla: I would **love** it to be in the books, it is still working for me that Dumbledore would not want Harry to know about it character wise. I do hope she puts it in encyclopedia though. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 26 03:14:50 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:14:50 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: <4025C9AAEE104648889EA6519D0FB17B@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178514 > > Magpie: > > But so is Dumbledore dead and no longer a teacher. (Technically he's > > never been a teacher, just a headmaster > > Panhandle: > > I'm pretty sure Dumbledore was the Transfiguration professor prior to his > appointment as Headmaster. > > See Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 17. Tom Riddle refers to " ... the > Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore ...". Magpie: Sorry--no, I meant that he was never a teacher during Harry's story so Harry's only known him as a headmaster and never a teacher. I now Tom Riddle and others knew him as a teacher. Alla: But that's my point about Lupin we only hear about his involvement with Tonks when he is **no longer** teacher, when he becomes fellow order member and to some extent comrad IMO. We have not heard anything about his love life when he was teaching. Magpie: Dumbledore's never been a teacher during the series--and at the point Harry's learning about Grindenwald, he's dead! Of course I can see Dumbledore not mentioning his sexual preference to Harry, and Harry never seeing him do anything that would show it to him. Though I think the Grindelwald relationship, if he was in love with him, would be relevent. Not that I can't make it work character-wise for Dumbledore to not say anything about it, since it seems totally in character for him to talk about other peoples' romantic motivations while brushing over his own if he thought it made him look bad. But I don't think JKR was forced to leave it out if she wanted it in there. I think she's the one who made the decision to not give us that reason as part of the mix of Dumbledore's motivations. It will be interesting to see if she would put it in the encyclopedia, actually. -m From marion11111 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 03:36:28 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:36:28 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: <008d01c8170a$99ebac10$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > sherry k > > > > I agree. Many of the more disagreeable characters have been heavy: > > Uncle Vernon, Dudley (although he did redeem himself), Aunt Marge, > > and Dolores Umbridge. Is it too much to ask for a positive heavy > > character, particularly a female one? I do concede she does throw > > us a bone with Neville-- he starts out the series as the proto- > > typical stupid fat kid, he ends up being quite the brave character. > > > Shelley: > This argument was hashed out before, and I seem to remember people coming up > with positive characters who were heavy: > Hagrid, Madame Maxine, Slughorn. If you search the archives, you could come > up with the full list. The full comparison also includes skinny people who > were bad, so that if you look at the totality of who's on both sides (skinny > and heavy), you can't draw the conclusion that heavy = bad, but rather see > that there's an even distribution. > marion11111: I'm going to need to see an overweight character who is more positive than Slughorn! He's greedy and lazy. he lies by altering his memory. He's two-faced, pretending to mourn Hagrid's spider in order to get what he needs. He sucks up to influencial people. I've never gone in for the excuse that because he liked Lily, Hermione and Harry and stayed behind to fight in DH, he's a positive character. Would you use him as a role model? Then he's not a positive character. He's just not as bad as some others. And I don't consider Hagrid and Maxine overweight. They're giants. We read that they're big but we don't read about double chins or paunchy wasitlines like we do with Uncle Vernon or Dudley. I can't think of any characters who are described as skinny other than Harry in the first book. I don't mean normal weight characters, but people described in a stereotypical way such as "bony." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 04:12:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:12:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's love life WAS: Canon citation requested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178516 > Magpie: > Dumbledore's never been a teacher during the series--and at the point > Harry's learning about Grindenwald, he's dead! Alla: Right, I am afraid I see the Headmaster as a teacher all the same. And it seems that Dumbledore talks of himself as teacher to Tom, to Harry several times during series. Regardless, I see him as teacher, Headmaster in charge of the school to me is a teacher all the same. IMO of course. But that is why he is Headmaster not a teacher not working for me at all. But sure, Dead part is true. But funny thing is I think it still plays out nicely for me. I mean, sure story logic wise, there are no constraints now for Harry to learn about their love story ( as in no Dumbledore restraining himself not talk to student, etc). But but who else would know? As in not implications a la Rita Skeeter, but the **truth** of one teenager really falling in love with another teenager, and suffering over it, etc. Who else would know real story but Dumbledore? I mean, would Batilda know everything? Would Rita? Or would they only repeat bits and pieces that would distort the picture for Harry so badly that JKR may consider that it is better for Harry to never learn it at all, since Dumbledore is not around to say what was really in his heart. I mean, I suppose King Cross was a good place to mention it by Dumbledore, here I see no reason not to, since Dumbledore went into begging forgiveness and all that. I am just saying it is working for me. > Of course I can see Dumbledore not mentioning his sexual preference > to Harry, and Harry never seeing him do anything that would show it > to him. Though I think the Grindelwald relationship, if he was in > love with him, would be relevent. Not that I can't make it work > character-wise for Dumbledore to not say anything about it, since it > seems totally in character for him to talk about other peoples' > romantic motivations while brushing over his own if he thought it > made him look bad. Alla: Right, exactly. But I don't think JKR was forced to leave it out > if she wanted it in there. I think she's the one who made the > decision to not give us that reason as part of the mix of > Dumbledore's motivations. Alla: Really depends to me on what you mean by *was forced*. If you mean that somebody **else** forced her to not mention in the story, then I agree, I am sure right now she is powerful enough to insist on it even if her editors will freak out. But if by forced one means thinking about the external circumstances that can hurt the books, oh yeah, I think that in a sense she may have been forced. Metaphorically of course. To repeat what I said before - in a sense that she may not have wanted to give more people reasons to burn the books. To make a long story short, her not mentioning it in the books for me works in any event - I can totally see it storyline and character reason wise OR I can see why she just vaguely hinted it and not included even if she wanted to. If the second one is correct, meaning correct in a sense that she wanted to mention, but changed her mind due to external circumstances, I can SO see why and cannot judge her for that at all. > It will be interesting to see if she would put it in the > encyclopedia, actually. Alla: Oh yeah, totally. And if she will, I think it has a much better chances of staying at least a footnote of canon, if the books stand the test of time. After all, Bests and Quidditch are part of the canon, encyclopedia IMO should be too. Heee, I am thinking of Aragon and Arven - also sort of a footnote, no? JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 26 12:11:35 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:11:35 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178517 > > I can't think of any characters who are described as skinny other than Harry in the first > book. I don't mean normal weight characters, but people described in a stereotypical way > such as "bony." Potioncat: hem hem, As I said before....Petunia. > From yvaine28 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 04:55:58 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:55:58 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stereotypes- Q & A: (was: Re: I am so happy, There is a gay ... In-Reply-To: <27806.40936.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <27806.40936.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5d7223330710252155w658c76b5qb0500ee6c1568601@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178518 bamf wrote: Actually, she was asked if any of her characters were gay. Not specifically about any one character. THAT'S why I think she should have just left it alone. Unless you and I read a different transcript about what went on, the only thing the person asked was very general. Meann: Jo wasn't asked if any of the characters were gay. She was asked if Dumbledore had found love. JKR explains the rationale behind the revelation in her recent appearance in Toronto where she received an "Order of the Forest" award. She says: "Ummm... because I was asked a very direct question at Carnegie Hall and the question was, which I have never been asked before... do you... given that one of the biggest themes in the books is love, did Albus Dumbledore ever find love? And the girl who asked it, I have to say, prefaced it with these wonderful statements about how the Harry Potter books have helped her be more fully herself. She's a teenager. So I answered honestly. I suppose the other half of that answer is that Dumbledore's ill-fated infatuation was a key part of the plot of book 7." The full transcript is here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html Leaky's transcript of the Carnegie Hall reading with the actual Q&A is 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 Hope that clears things up. ---*meann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 07:49:26 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:49:26 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <016601c8174e$8aff1540$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178519 Miles wrote: > If you compare homosexuals to pathological killers, I do not see a > point in any further discussion. Del wrote: I feel that you are jumping to conclusions. Yes I am comparing homosexuals to pathological killers. However, my intent in doing so is not to lump them all together. "To compare" is not the same as "to equate". One can compare two things to show just how similar they are, or inversely to show just how different they are, or more generally to figure out in which ways they are different and in which ways they are similar. So making a comparison between homosexuals and pathological killers doesn't mean that I actually intend to equate them. What I *am* trying to do is figure out what the conditions are in the principle of "allowing people to act as they were born/made to act". Lanval gave me one such condition, which I shall address later on in this post. May I ask, what are *your* conditions, Miles? Miles: > I do not like to compare anything to Nazi crimes, but what we read > about the treatment of muggleborns in DH is very similar to the > treatment of German Jews before the war. They lost their jobs and > were forbidden to work in their profession. They were expropriated, > many had to give up their entire fortune to leave the country. > Others stayed in Germany, because it was their home. As many > muggleborns, who stayed in *their* home world, these Jews had > problems to make their living without a job, there might have been > situations not too different to the one we saw in Diagon Alley. I'm French, so believe me, this parallel didn't escape me. However, even while reading the books, I found that this parallel fell apart in some parts, and the Muggleborns begging in Diagon Alley was one of them. It fell apart for me simply because I couldn't imagine Jews begging in German streets and not being arrested straight away. Or else beaten away into disappearance. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to me that the Death Eaters would allow Muggleborns to beg in Diagon Alley, to "disturb" passers-by and so on. And if that Muggleborn had had got a hold of the real Bellatrix instead of Hermione, I think that at best he would have been Crucio'd and at worst AK'd (or vice versa depending on how you consider torture and death). Mind you, I can also imagine that those Muggleborn beggars are allowed to remain in Diagon Alley as some kind of "exhibit": something like "Muggleborns in their right place: begging for scraps from wizards". That would be something LV and the DEs could come up with and enjoy. But still: that doesn't change the fact that it all felt too contrived and artificial to me and not in line with what I know of the treatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazis before and during WWII. Miles: > But I must admit that I never expected anyone would blame the > fictional victims of Lord Voldemorts regime for their fate I'm not blaming them for being persecuted and having their wands taken away or anything. I'm just saying that I found that particular group of Muggleborns pathetic in their apparent utter helplessness. Wizards have been shown to be resourceful before, and Muggleborns even more so since they have to adapt to a whole new world to begin with. So to see them reducing themselves to begging felt extremely jarring, forced, and out of character to me. *** Lanval wrote: > When LV 'acts', he HURTS people. > When Draco 'acts' the way he was raised, by which I take you mean > his bigoted worldview, he HURTS people. > When Wizards 'take over' weaker Muggles, they HURT those Muggles. Del replies: This is exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for: a clear naming of a limitation. "People shouldn't act the way they feel they were created to act when it hurts other people". Thank you. My next question would then be: how do you define hurt? It's pretty clear how people are getting hurt in the examples I mentioned above, but what about those next examples: * Muggles being killed, physically harmed, or Obliviated, as a direct consequence of wizards wanting to live their own way. * A specific subset of the above category: Muggle families being torn apart when their child goes to Hogwarts, because of the Statute of Secrecy. * Magical races being brought to extinction (Giants), or being confined to ever tinier "reservations" because wizards don't want to share space with them on mutually agreeable terms (Centaurs). Those are all examples of wizards choosing to live the way they feel they've been created to live. I personally think that they do great harm to entire categories of other "people" by living so. What do you think of it? Lanval: > Now, please do elaborate how your examples compare to consenting > adults entering into a relationship based on love and/or mutual > sexual attraction. Yes? Who's the victim? Where's the crime? I cannot elaborate since this would be OT, however I do want to point out that most people who oppose homosexuality *do* see both a crime and a set of victims, not necessarily in the act or the partners themselves, but in the more global concept of homosexuality. It's a matter of different worldviews and entirely different moralities - something much more akin to the "House-Elf enslavement" problem than to the Muggleborn problem, IMO. Del ELFY NOTE: The elves appreciate the attempt here to avoid going OT. If you wish to reply *only* to the final remarks, and those remarks would take you away from the books & story themselves, remember that you will need to take your post to Off-Topic Chatter [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ ]. Thank you! From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 08:19:30 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:19:30 +0200 Subject: the core of the elder wand Message-ID: <000b01c817a8$ef43ed50$5e4377d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178520 At the HP-Lexicon, what's new, Hey Jo: pensieve, you can find some ideas concerning the core of the elder wand. Bandersnatch is speculating the core of this wand is made by chocolate! I myself, think the core could be unicorn blood, blood of a thestral, phoenix feather, a hair of death, ... In short: I don't know. But I'd like the idea of a chocolate core, and Willy Wonka as part of the "famous wizard-gallery". For this gallery, cf. the famous wizards (chocolate frog-cards) on the HP-Lexicon. If the core of the elder wand was chocolate, would this explain why Dumbledore is fond of sweets (cf. the passwords you need for entering the headmaster's office)? Best, Katty From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 13:46:57 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:46:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710260646x70156140s8f4a273b000ee29c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178521 Carol wrote: > > > > I guess my thing was then why did she never give the "fat lady" a > name? If she is so accepting of differences, why was she always just > the "fat lady"? And Duddley was called a lot of names, not by Harry, > but by JK in the writings. Yes, Duddley wasn't a nice boy for a long > time but the rude things weren't said about his personality, they were > said about his weight. montims: but where is the negative connotation, except in the minds of certain readers? She is the fat lady because she is fat. She could just as well be the spotty lady or the blonde lady - it is a description. If you look at a person who is fat, or missing a leg, or who has a squint, that is the characteristic that you will note immediately, and it is probably the way you would refer to that person if wanting to identify them to a friend who was there, among many other people - the fat lady (or the lady with the squint or whatever), not the lady wearing the red dress... It is an adjective, NOT an insult, or a judgement. Read The First Lady Detective Agency series, and you can see that being of "traditional build" is desirable, not a bad thing. I am fat, and wear glasses, but because I am English in America, that is probably the way people describe me these days. But any description that defines me, as long as it's accurate, is fine... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 26 14:04:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:04:47 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0710251801w1f41eb93w8330a8458229d078@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178522 > Silmariel: > Exactly. People flee in war times, if they can, why a full trained > wizard couldn't? It's far easier to escape from UK by magical means > than as a muggle, and the world isn't at war, it's just the UK. > > Another plot hole. Pippin: Is it? Britain is an island. Most wizards can't apparate over long distances, and the Ministry has the means to trace illegal portkey use. We know from what Hagrid told us that he wasn't exactly welcome on his journey abroad with Maxime. Since Durmstrang has a policy of keeping out Muggleborn students, the governments of the European WW can't be great defenders of Muggleborn rights either. Not to mention the language problem. Plus, if Muggleborns don't cooperate with the government, then they're proving they're disloyal -- it's a catch22. It might be wishful thinking to suppose that because the population has wands they wouldn't be helpless if they were arrested without warning. DE's are just as capable of using Expelliarmus as our hero, right? Then too there's the demoralizing effect of being turned out of your home and deprived of all your possessions, something we're familiar with here in Southern California (I'm okay, thanks). But look at Trelawney. No one took away her wand, but she still seemed completely unable to cope with losing her job and her home. Also, we don't know how secure the Muggleborns were before DH. Among the adult wizards Harry meets, who's got a Muggle- type name? Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang are all I can think of, and crewing the Knight Bus doesn't seem to be a prestige job or a well-paying one. You probably don't squirrel away a vault full of galleons with a job like that. Slughorn mentions a prestigious Muggleborn or two, but they could be the Lena Horne and Jackie Robinson of the WW. Lily, we now know, never had to find a job. So maybe Muggleborns weren't as well off as we thought to begin with. One person's plot hole is another's unconscious assumption. I think part of what JKR wants to do is make us aware of how many unconscious assumptions we make. Or maybe just uninformed ones. You think American citizens wouldn't cooperate with rounding up a minority and letting them be taken to internment camps? History says you'd be wrong. Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Fri Oct 26 14:38:37 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:38:37 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178523 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > Everyone has been talking about the books being about acceptance, and > > now this big thing about DD being gay. Well, what about with people > > that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat > > lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a > > cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be > > more than just "the fat lady." > > > > Carol va32h: Maybe the artist who painted the Fat Lady didn't give her a name. Maybe the painting is entitled: The Fat Lady. Not every subject in a work of art gets a name from his or her creator. Honestly - that the lack of a name for a portrait was a sign of discrimination never occurred to me. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 15:12:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:12:42 -0000 Subject: Skinny characters (Was: Acceptance) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178524 Marion wrote: > > I can't think of any characters who are described as skinny other than Harry in the first book. I don't mean normal weight characters, but people described in a stereotypical way such as "bony." > Potioncat responded: > hem hem, As I said before....Petunia. Carol adds: And "horse-faced" to boot. Poor Petunia. There's also Trelawney, who, though not a bad guy, is a figure of fun and a model of ineptitude: "Harry's immediate impression was of a large, glittering insect. Professor Trelawney moved into the firelight, and they saw that she was very thin; her large glasses engulfed her eyes to several times their natural size, and she was draped in a gauzy spangled shawl. Innumerable chains and beads hung around her spindly neck, and her arms and hands were encrusted with bangles and rings" (PoA Am. ed. 102). Sounds like a caricature of me if I dressed up for Halloween, actually. :-) The resurrected Voldemort is also "skeletally thin" (GoF Am. ed. 643), and I think we can agree that he's far more evil than any fat or chubby character, even the pathetically weak (and formerly chubby) Wormtail. Carol, agreeing with Marion that "skinny" does not mean normal weight (and unlike "slim" and "slender," or "plump" when plumpness was fashionable, is not a compliment) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 26 15:23:43 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's love life WAS: Canon citation requested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178525 > Alla: > > Right, I am afraid I see the Headmaster as a teacher all the same. > And it seems that Dumbledore talks of himself as teacher to Tom, to > Harry several times during series. Regardless, I see him as teacher, > Headmaster in charge of the school to me is a teacher all the same. > IMO of course. But that is why he is Headmaster not a teacher not > working for me at all.> But sure, Dead part is true. Magpie: Yeah, I think they're basically the same too in this context--I mean, headmaster and teacher. He's just not either by DH. Alla: > But funny thing is I think it still > plays out nicely for me. I mean, sure story logic wise, there are no > constraints now for Harry to learn about their love story ( as in no > Dumbledore restraining himself not talk to student, etc). > > But but who else would know? As in not implications a la Rita > Skeeter, but the **truth** of one teenager really falling in love > with another teenager, and suffering over it, etc. Who else would > know real story but Dumbledore? Magpie: Absolutely it plays out just fine--JKR's announcement about how she thinks he felt about Grindelwald doesn't explain any holes in canon at all. She wrote the story without that idea entirely (at least explicitly). People might or might not have wondered if he wasn't in love with Grindelwald on their own, but it's not part of understanding the story as written. As for who else would know, I would guess plenty of people could have. If JKR wanted to make this part of the story there's nothing keeping her from doing it, is my point. There's any number of ways she could have found to do it, either by having Dumbledore say something or some other way. (Dumbledore wouldn't even have to say it outright--for instance, he could have at some point in HBP just made some comment about falling in love with the wrong person in response to something he and Harry were talking about in such a way that Harry thought he was speaking from personal experience. Fandom would then no doubt have speculated on who this person was. Then in DH it would seem pretty obvious it was Grindelwald.) But it works for me too, without it. I don't think anybody finished DH and said, "Wait, but I don't understand this!" in such a way that being told he was in love with Grindelwald would explain it finally. It's not a plot hole because the story just answers the question in a different way leaving that out. It's not a flaw in the books, imo, it's an author's choice to not write it that way. Magpie: > But I don't think JKR was forced to leave it out > > if she wanted it in there. I think she's the one who made the > > decision to not give us that reason as part of the mix of > > Dumbledore's motivations. > > > Alla: > > Really depends to me on what you mean by *was forced*. If you mean > that somebody **else** forced her to not mention in the story, then > I agree, I am sure right now she is powerful enough to insist on it > even if her editors will freak out. > > But if by forced one means thinking about the external circumstances > that can hurt the books, oh yeah, I think that in a sense she may > have been forced. Metaphorically of course. Magpie: In my case, I was just talking about her being forced by story structure or not being able to find a way to fit it in. > Alla: > > Oh yeah, totally. And if she will, I think it has a much better > chances of staying at least a footnote of canon, if the books stand > the test of time. After all, Bests and Quidditch are part of the > canon, encyclopedia IMO should be too. > > Heee, I am thinking of Aragon and Arven - also sort of a footnote, > no? Magpie: True--though they're actually in the story proper, we just don't know the story of their love, right? She still shows up to marry him iirc. -m From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Oct 26 15:08:35 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:08:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior - 14. self spell wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178526 aussie: With a new view of Dumbledore, I want to focus on the Wand. CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior Q 14. Did you think the self-spelling wand was going to go somewhere? Did you get that it *was* the wand, or did you think it really was coming from Harry? It has been mentioned but worth repeating .... Arthur, in the Leaky Couldron to Molly (POA), said the MoM were no closer to catching Sirius Black than inventing "self-spelling wands". That is why all those gathered in DH5 show suprise and denial of Harry's wand acting on it's own. > Now Harry tells everyone how his wand acted on its > own. How it found Voldemort and shot a spell on its own; a > spell that Harry didn't know. Naturally, nobody believes this and > Hermione tries to correct him. Then Mr. Weasley tries one of his > explanations. Harry is getting more frustrated that nobody > believes his explanation and that they are giving him credit that > he doesn't deserve. aussie again: The spell it created reminds me of a dramatic spell Dumbledore used twice. Once in the duel with Voldemort in the MoM (OotP 36) and later against the Inferi inside the cave (HBP 26). (see quote below) Both times it was used for protection only. If this (like Harry's Expeliamus) was a signature spell of Albus's, could the ex-headmaster been connected to Harry or his wand some how? Possible ways Dumbledore may have helped the wand act of its own accord: - the wand had Dumbledore's pet phoenix's tail feather - Harry had witnessed the spell used twice from Dumbledore - (dare I say) similar in Star Wars, Obe Won Kenobe guided Luke Skywalker "Use the Force, Luke" from beyond the grave. What do you think? Aussie Quotes: OotP 36- The only one he ever feared: Dumbledore had drawn back his wand and waved it as though brandishing a whip. A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all. HBP 26- The Cave: But then, through the darkness, fire erupted: crimson and gold, a ring of fire that surrounded the rock ... Dumbledore was on his feet again, ...his wand was raised like a torch and from its tip emanated the flames, like a vast lasso, encircling them ...as Dumbledore led Harry back to the boat, the ring of fire moving with them, around them, ... all his efforts seemed to be going into maintaining the ring of protective flame around them. DH4 "...his wand acted of its own accord. He felt it drag his hand round like some great magnet, saw a spurt of golden fire..." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 16:41:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:41:25 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178527 Silmariel wrote: > > Exactly. People flee in war times, if they can, why a full trained wizard couldn't? It's far easier to escape from UK by magical means than as a muggle, and the world isn't at war, it's just the UK. > > > > Another plot hole. > Pippin responded: > > Is it? Britain is an island. Most wizards can't apparate over long distances, and the Ministry has the means to trace illegal portkey use. We know from what Hagrid told us that he wasn't exactly welcome on his journey abroad with Maxime. Since Durmstrang has a policy of keeping out Muggleborn students, the governments of the European WW can't be great defenders of Muggleborn rights either. Not to mention the language problem. > > Plus, if Muggleborns don't cooperate with the government, then they're proving they're disloyal -- it's a catch22. Carol responds: Dover to Calais is 21 miles (I looked it up), easily covered by Apparition. Of course, it's possible that the DEs would anticipate a Muggle-born invasion of Dover and be on the lookout for Apparating families. As for a language barrier, Fleur and Viktor spoke English, as did their classmates who spent almost a year at Hogwarts. Many European Muggles speak English as well. It wouldn't be an insurmountable problem, certainly preferably to begging in the streets of Diagon Alley. And it would be better to work as, say, a sales clerk or janitor or seamstress (secretly using a wand to do the work) than to beg from other wizards, some of them hostile to you and others afraid to show compassion for fear of being considered blood traitors and punished. What does it matter if the Muggle-borns don't cooperate with the government if they leave the British WW? The reach of LV's arm isn't very long as of DH. Except for LV himself hunting down specific victims and killing a few people who get in his way, it's limited to Britain, specifically England and Scotland, as far as I can tell. There's no indication of DEs in Ireland or even Wales. Why not hide out there? We know that there are wizards in both places since both have (or had) Quidditch teams. Hagrid wasn't exactly welcome on his journey with Maxime? I'm not sure what you mean, but Hagrid is rather conspicuous given his size and was being tailed by MoM agents as an ally of Dumbledore's (and one who wasn't supposed to use magic because of his expulsion long before). I don't think we can compare his experiences with those of other wizards who can blend in more easily, and at least some of whom can pass as Muggles. (Granted, the children couldn't attend Durmstrang, but they could attend Beauxbatons. Surely, Madame Maxime would be glad to help if she knew of their plight. And there are apparently other, smaller, wizarding schools in Europe. Or they could attend Muggle schools--all that's needed is a little Confundus charm to convince the people in charge that the documents are in order.) I would have liked to see some sort of Underground movement beyond Pottercast. The Order seems to have done virtually nothing, and even competent wizards like Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell end up dead even though they're facing the likes of Fenrir Greyback and his Snatchers. There are only so many intelligent DEs. Snape, of course, is not a DE at all, and he's at Hogwarts. Yaxley is at the MoM. Travers can only be in one place at a time. Lucius is deprived of his wand and his authority. Even Bellatrix has just overcome disgrace and then finds herself disgraced again, and she's fixated on trimming her family tree. The cruel but stupid Carrows are at Hogwarts, not involved in the hunt for Muggleborns. Wormtail is playing servant to the Malfoys in lieu of a House-Elf. Which leaves Dolohov, the newly identified Selwyn, and a few others to keep track of all the Muggle-borns in Britain, with the help of Fenrir Greyback and various crews of money-seeking thugs with neither brains nor power? True, the MoM has been infiltrated, but the Imperiused Thicknesse seems to spend most of his time in the office being a bureaucrat; Umbridge issues decrees and pamphlets and holds trials. Other MoM employees are either sycophants or lackeys, keeping their heads down so that they won't get into trouble. A few, like Arthur Weasley (until March) do their jobs as best they can, secretly seething and perhaps doing what they can to undermine the new regime. The takeover is too quick and involves too few people to make the situation of the Muggle-borns (except those whose children have been kidnapped) plausible. Surely, many if not most could have fled England, perhaps putting their most important possessions in a bag like Hermione's first and placing some sort of magical protection on their homes to prevent them from being broken into. No one seems to know about Fidelius Charms (though, granted, they'd need to find food). At any rate, Muggle-borns are not Muggles, and you'd think they'd find magical means to protect themselves or even to fight the DEs and MoM employees, whom they greatly outnumber, rather than complying. It's not like unarmed Jews being arrested and dragged off to concentration camps by armed Nazis. And yet only Hermione seems to have the presence of mind to escape the DEs (and take the boys with her) in the attack of Xenophilius Lovegood's house. (As for the Snatcher attack, if Harry hadn't perversely insisted on saying "Voldemort," it wouldn't have happened.) I do wonder, however, what happened to all the Muggle-born first-years who received their Hogwarts letters only to find that they couldn't attend, or perhaps even buy a wand. Maybe Snape (who somehow had access to the headmaster's office even before he was appointed to the post) made sure that those letters were never sent, for the protection of those children? Another plothole, since Harry once thinks of those children but they're never mentioned again. Pippin: > It might be wishful thinking to suppose that because the population has wands they wouldn't be helpless if they were arrested without warning. DE's are just as capable of using Expelliarmus as our hero, right? Carol: But there aren't enough DEs to go around, and they're not going to show up along with the owl that delivers the decree that Muggle-borns must register and surrender their wands. Rather than submit to the decree without taking any kind of action, I would think that most Muggle-borns would either fight or run, taking whatever defensive measures they could. Anything, whether it's passing as a Muggle in London or Apparating to the Continent (or Wales or Ireland) rather than begging in Diagon Alley. Those who can't Apparate or Side-along Apparate with a relative can take a broom. Even Crabbe and Goyle can fly, and even they learn to perform Disillusionment Charms. It can't be that difficult. I do realize that the Muggle-borns would be fugitives and that they would most likely lose their homes, but it's implausible that they would not and could not take some sort of precautions or have some sort of alternative to becoming as helpless and degraded as Merope. > > Then too there's the demoralizing effect of being turned out of your home and deprived of all your possessions, something we're familiar with here in Southern California (I'm okay, thanks). But look at Trelawney. No one took away her wand, but she still seemed completely unable to cope with losing her job and her home. Carol: True. No one is denying the hardship they would face. It's just that they're given warning--the decree that orders them to register. And surely most people have more presence of mind than Trelawney and somewhere else to go, some relative who will temporarily take them in, or Muggle Social Services to help them out. (I'm as concerned as you are for the real-life plight of the refugees from the fires, and I hope that the arsonists who started the Santiago Fire are given the maximum penalty for their horrible crime, but the situation in DH is not comparable to the one in Southern California or any other catastrophe involving real people.) We're talking about fully qualified witches and wizards who can perform magic and who can escape before they're caught. Yes, they will be at least temporarily homeless, but the DEs aren't burning every house that once housed Muggle-borns, IIRC. And you would think that they'd be capable of conjuring some sort of shelter to house them in their flight and concealing it with a Disillusionment Charm is necessary (unless their education, like Harry's, is incomplete. In fact, it does seem that Hogwarts, which ostensibly prepares Wizarding kids for life in the WW as adults, does a woefully inadequate job of preparing them for emergencies, both in terms of protective spells and healing spells.) Pippin: > One person's plot hole is another's unconscious assumption. I think part of what JKR wants to do is make us aware of how many unconscious assumptions we make. Or maybe just uninformed ones. You think American citizens wouldn't cooperate with rounding up a minority and letting them be taken to internment camps? History says you'd be wrong. Carol responds: We're not talking about the cooperation of ordinary citizens in the rounding up of Japanese Americans during WWII (though I'd bet that most Americans didn't even know it was going on until after the fact--the "it can't happen here" attitude). We're talking about fully qualified witches and wizards who are warned via decree that they have to register and have their wands taken away or prove that they have Wizarding blood. IOW, they're given time to take some sort of action as an alternative to begging or being sent to Azkaban. And you'd think that they'd put their wands and their minds to good use to find a way. Hermione can't be the only Muggle-born in the British WW capable of forethought. Carol, who is merely wondering why the adult Muggle-borns (ostensibly as good at magic as Pure-bloods and Half-bloods) are so helpless, in contrast to the resourceful eighteen-year-old Hermione, who hasn't even finished her Hogwarts education From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 26 17:06:57 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:06:57 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178528 sistermagpie wrote: > > If Draco's insults--one or which is *Pansy's* line, not Draco's, are > considered anti-black and anti-Irish (I think that last one is a > particular stretch) then Ron's "they'll be announcing their > engagement any day now" about Percy and Crouch would surely count as > homophobic. > > That is, *if* we count either of those--I don't think we should. Ann: No, you're quite right. I could have sworn Angelina had dreadlocks, but there you go. And the Irish!Weasleys was a very vague case (I did say "might be construed".) Incidentally, I think the entire WW is Catholic; I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that second example. If the Percy/Crouch Sr. jibe (on p. 54, GoF, UK ed.) is the extent of homophobic expression in canon, homosexuality would appear to be... well, pretty much irrelevant in the WW. It's more misogynist, in my opinion, with the assumption that a wife must be ridiculously subservient to her husband. This reminds me of the "Perversion in the Graveyard" posts, 40118 and onwards, actually. Obviously this doesn't have any bearing on the WW's attitudes to anything, but it's certainly suggestive. > Magpie: > > True, we just don't know the attitude towards it [homosexuality - > Ann]. Ron's reference to Percy/Crouch indicates "isn't that > humiliating!" Since we don't see Ron responding to just same-sex > attraction in itself we don't know if he's really just saying > Percy/Crouch is silly or if it's extra silly because it pairs Percy > with a man and suggests his devotion to his boss is emasculating > because it looks like having a crush on a man. Ann: Is the Percy/Crouch line the only comment about homosexuality? If it is, we can pretty much say that homosexuality might be seen as slightly amusing, but definitely not important or bad aspect of sexuality. I've always read this line as being more along the lines of Percy being silly and emasculated and therefore gay. But it doesn't sound very considered. Ron doesn't think about it, just says it. On the subject of alternative sexuality in the WW: they don't seem to have much of a problem with half-giants. Rita Skeeter may score a point by revealing that Hagrid's a half-giant, and he says he's never met one before (GoF, p. 372); but he never mentions his parents having to hide their relationship. In any case, it would be perfectly obvious - by the time he's six, he's bigger than his father. In any case, every wizard who attended Hogwarts for the last fifty years would know how big he is, and be able to put two and two together; Rita's not scored much of a coup, has she? I'd say that this is the best parallel to homosexuality in the WW. Remember that Madame Olympe is a headmistress of a prestigious school. (Ok, maybe they pass it off as being the result of a magical accident, but that could be dealt with by St. Mungo's, or make the Prophet if it couldn't. And it could be seen through somehow, I'm sure.) Magpie: > > It's still interesting to me that there seems to be > certainly special considerations when it comes to Dumbledore and > perhaps other gay couples if they do exist that we've got a very > long list of characters we see showing straight attraction or being > in straight relationships but with Dumbledore it's not part of his > character (the way being straight is to many characters) or not > relevent to his story the way similar straight infatuations are. Ann: It is interesting, isn't it? A pretty big blind spot in JKR's inclusive credentials, at the least. Ann From dama.silmariel at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 17:29:21 2007 From: dama.silmariel at gmail.com (silmariel) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:29:21 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: References: <56f2b65c0710251801w1f41eb93w8330a8458229d078@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56f2b65c0710261029r38bfbd70yb756daea9ceb8c14@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178529 On 10/26/07, pippin_999 wrote: > > > Silmariel: > > Exactly. People flee in war times, if they can, why a full trained > > wizard couldn't? It's far easier to escape from UK by magical means > > than as a muggle, and the world isn't at war, it's just the UK. > > > > Another plot hole. > > Pippin: > > Is it? Britain is an island. Most wizards can't apparate over long > distances, and the Ministry has the means to trace illegal portkey > use. Silmariel: So what? Supossedly Sirius made swimming a distance far longer than the channel, in a pathetic mental and physical state after having been in jail ten years, and we've seen how DD had no problems swimming like a much younger man in cold waters, and there are the spells that used the trichampion wizards, turn into a fish, make an air bubble, etc. They can trace illegal portkeys, as if one minds being detected after the flight. Portkeys do not prevent illegal use, only warn after the fact, when you are in other country. Pippin: > We know from what Hagrid told us that he wasn't exactly > welcome on his journey abroad with Maxime. Since Durmstrang > has a policy of keeping out Muggleborn students, the governments > of the European WW can't be great defenders of Muggleborn > rights either. Not to mention the language problem. Silmariel: I hope Germany isn't all Europe (do you think Beauxbatons is less bigoted since the headmaster is half giant?), but I really think trying to seek refuge in Dark Arts Durstramg is quite, impractical. I wasn't thinking in Europe, more, in all the world. Language problems are problems when you haven't magic, it's not like WW magic doesn't include magically learned languages. Pippin: > > Plus, if Muggleborns don't cooperate with the government, then they're > proving they're disloyal -- it's a catch22. > Silmariel: I don't see the point. They're fleeing from a genocide, should someone stay to be slaughtered just to prove their loyal? It doesn't matter what they do, the powers that be would demonize them. Pippin: > It might be wishful thinking to suppose that because the population > has wands they wouldn't be helpless if they were arrested without > warning. DE's are just as capable of using Expelliarmus as > our hero, right? Silmariel: Why should they wait? The moment one person dissapears, everyone else should consider themselves in a war. Should they just wait there? Muggles just can't leave for another country, travels are very risky, but wizards have the means. Pippin: > Then too there's the demoralizing effect of being turned out of > your home and deprived of all your possessions, something we're > familiar with here in Southern California (I'm okay, thanks). But > look at Trelawney. No one took away her wand, but she still > seemed completely unable to cope with losing her job and her > home. Silmariel: Of course, that's terrible, but it's better than losing life, no one is saying leaving your home is easy, it's the kind of things a war forces you to do. I don't think Trelawney, alcoholic and isolated, can be taken as the measure of muggleborns, she's like a Merope. Pippin: > Also, we don't know how secure the Muggleborns were before > DH. Among the adult wizards Harry meets, who's got a Muggle- > type name? Stan Shunpike and Ernie Prang are all I can think > of, and crewing the Knight Bus doesn't seem to be a prestige job > or a well-paying one. You probably don't squirrel away a vault > full of galleons with a job like that. Slughorn mentions a prestigious > Muggleborn or two, but they could be the Lena Horne and Jackie > Robinson of the WW. Lily, we now know, never had to find a job. So > maybe Muggleborns weren't as well off as we thought to begin with. Silmariel: She had seven books to have that clear, I didn't notice, only Slytherins assume that Hermione should be found an slave work. I think if the general WW punishes Hermione and expects her to be kept down workless as an adult, that should have been seen explicitly. Same for the other muggleborns, I haven't seen separated educations for muggleborns, nor second quality wands to impair their training. Pippin: > One person's plot hole is another's unconscious assumption. Silmariel: Yes, lots of readers don't notice plotholes in CoS, for example. And ignoring the 'fridge logic', it's a good reading - just think you have universal translators. Pippin: > I > think part of what JKR wants to do is make us aware of how many > unconscious assumptions we make. Or maybe just uninformed ones. Silmariel: I think she could have wrote a good book about bigotry, or a wave, but she stopped at the surface. She also wanted to make a statement about slavery (from interviews), and look the mess she did. Pippin: > You think American citizens wouldn't cooperate with rounding up > a minority and letting them be taken to internment camps? History > says you'd be wrong. I'd never think that, from personal experience. I wrote it can be done, even counting with having to wipe a trained 25% of the population. AFAIK genocides are sadly easy to create, and no population is free from that. Is as brainwashes, no one notices when they are being brainwashed, except trained proffesionals (and that doesn't mean they can scape from it, just they'll notice what's happening to them). Silmariel From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 17:37:34 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:37:34 -0000 Subject: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178530 > Del replies: > This is exactly the kind of reply I was hoping for: a clear naming of > a limitation. "People shouldn't act the way they feel they were > created to act when it hurts other people". Thank you. > > My next question would then be: how do you define hurt? It's pretty > clear how people are getting hurt in the examples I mentioned above, > but what about those next examples: > > * Muggles being killed, physically harmed, or Obliviated, as a direct > consequence of wizards wanting to live their own way. > > * A specific subset of the above category: Muggle families being torn > apart when their child goes to Hogwarts, because of the Statute of > Secrecy. > > * Magical races being brought to extinction (Giants), or being > confined to ever tinier "reservations" because wizards don't want to > share space with them on mutually agreeable terms (Centaurs). > > Those are all examples of wizards choosing to live the way they feel > they've been created to live. I personally think that they do great > harm to entire categories of other "people" by living so. What do you > think of it? Prep0strus: I think that in real life, it is a matter of freedom. Personal freedom to act in any way that makes you happy as long as it does not take away from someone else's right to pursue happiness in their personal life. It is when two people's pursuit of their own personal happiness intersects that an issue arises, and a decision must be made. Usually, whichever person is able to live their life most unaffected by relinquishing their desire, or the one whose desire most involves OTHERS that (in my opinion, and I believe the law in most modern societies) sacrifices their desire. Example: Murder. One person would be made happy by killing someone. Another person would be made happy by living their life without being killed. The killer is attempting to take away the freedom of life from the victim, and the victim is attempting to take away the freedom to kill from the murderer. We side with the victim, who is not in any active way impacting the life of the killer, over the murderer, who is attempting to take away the life of the victim in an active way. So, in your examples - Muggles being killed - clearly wrong. They are harmed, their freedoms taken away, and by NOT killing them, the wizards lose nothing but the right to kill Muggles wantonly. Obliviating them - slightly touchier. We see examples of this being treated ok in other ares of fiction - Men in Black comes to mind. I think, because the Muggles do not get a choice, this falls on the side of 'wrong'. There is no reason why the wizards should be making the decision for the muggles on whether they wish to remember something that has occurred in their life experience or not. It may be 'in the best interest' of the muggles, who will wind up being confused, and likely not believed by anyone, but I think that the choice should be theirs whether they keep their memories or not. Muggle families being torn apart. This is VERY different. This is an unintended consequence. The child does not HAVE to go to Hogwarts. He/she and his/her family make that decision. Then, their families do not HAVE to be torn apart. It is a risk, because the child is entering a very different world, and keeping close ties will be difficult, but not impossible. Wizards have married muggles. Clearly they can interact if the desire is great enough. In your examples, there is no one who is 'wrong'. For the wizards to decide the child CAN'T go to Hogwarts, again, 'for their own good', is inappropriate. That is a decision the family makes and lives with. There is no conflict of interest, just a possible negative consequence of a chosen path. Magical races being brought to extinction is a much more complex issue. It is more of a case of war, of two separate cultures being unwilling to bend, and must consist of much more complex issues than we know about. I'm sure wizards want to be free of giants marching around stepping on their houses and eating them, which might be the giants idea of freedom. In that case, I think the wizards have a right to defend themselves. Perhaps the centaurs and giants simply want the right to roam freely overland that has not been built up by people. Wizards, being a small population, seem less likely a reason for the reduced land for that than muggles. Centaurs seem to want the right to simply not be around wizards or muggles, which I guess is a right that they can exert as long as room on the planet allows. It is unclear precisely whether wizards also wish them to be separate. For now, it seems like their aims align - each group wishes to remain separate. However, there may come a time when members of the different cultures wish to have more interaction, or world crowding forces it. At this point, compromises will have to be made to figure out how to allow for the lifestyles of each group to live without impinging on the rights of the others as much as possible. The same for the giants. However, if one group ever needs to be eliminated or subjugated, it should be the group whose desires most include taking away the freedom of the group - for instance, if wizards are willing to have giants around as long as they don't eat them, and giants continue to want to eat wizards, then I think subjugation of the giants will be a necessity. If wizards are willing to let centaurs around, but only if they let them ride them and live in stables, then centaurs will have the moral superiority. Whether they will have the strength of numbers to prevail is a different issue. The problem with your final example of homosexuality, is that some people wish to live their lives doing things that only affect each other. Other people wish to live their lives in a world where that doesn't happen. Again we have the comparison of which group is taking away more of the other group's freedom. One group wants the freedom to live and love in the way that is natural to them. The other group wants to stop anyone from living and loving in that way. So the first group would have to sacrifice their happiness and having love in their life, while the second group would have to sacrifice having the concept of something they think is wrong in the world. It is clear which group has more personal freedom on the line, and which group is the one more directly trying to take freedoms away. It is as if I HATED mimes. I just hated them. So much, and I thought their little invisible boxes were grotesque, and when they pull on that invisible rope it's pretty much evil. And no one is making me be a mime, or be friends with mimes, or go to mime shows. But some other people like mimes, and some people like being mimes. And while I wish all mimes should at least have to stay in their homes where no one could see them, the mimes wish to have the right to walk free and proud, and other people want the right to watch the mimes in public places, or include them in their television shows and movies because of the entertainment it brings them. My freedom for my life to be free of mimes only exists so far as it does not impact other people's lives to have mimes in them. This is in contrast to smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that right is being taken away in some public places. This is because another person's smoke can get into my lungs. They are impinging on my right to live smoke free. Smoking is dangerous to my health (unlike the sight of a mime), and while the smoker is exercising their personal freedom, more and more they are being asked to do it in a place where their personal activity will not impact the health and lives of those around them. Back to the wizarding world (sorry so long with all the examples) - if two people liked doing tickling charms on each other, or using Weaseley joke tricks on each other. As long as both are getting enjoyment out of it, and no one is being hurt, this is allowed. No one is going to come up and say - no tickling charms! No more joke boxes! Of course, if they started tickling everyone they met, or using the jokes on people who did not appreciate it, there could certainly be trouble, because they are impacting other people with their actions. I think direct action is the clearest answer to your question, though there are many complexities, tangents, and shades of grey involved. But I don't think one person should stop another person from doing something because they don't like the 'idea' of it. I think someone should only be stopped from doing something when their actions directly stop someone else from something. In a very general sense. Just because muggle-born wizards could potentially return to the muggle world does not give the other wizards the right to take away their wands. They were THEIR wands - the bought them, learned how to use them from people who wanted to teach them, and they used their wands in such a way as to live their own lives. Now these other wizards say, you living your life, even if it never impacts mine in any way, is something I find distasteful, so I'm going to take away your ability to live your life the way you wish. This is equally as wrong as if muggle-borns decided that pureblooded wizards had an unfair advantage in society, and not enough knowledge of the rest of the world, so decided to take all their children away and make them group up for the first 11 years of their life with muggles - or maybe take away their wands entirely so that muggleborns could be the new authorities. I feel it makes the most sense to side with the group whose freedom to live their own life is being impacted the most. ~Adam(Prep0strus), who hopes this long and rambling post was comprehensible to readers who managed to make it all the way through. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Fri Oct 26 18:21:07 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:21:07 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178531 va32h: Maybe the artist who painted the Fat Lady didn't give her a name. Maybe the painting is entitled: The Fat Lady. Not every subject in a work of art gets a name from his or her creator. Honestly - that the lack of a name for a portrait was a sign of discrimination never occurred to me. Tiffany: Some of the best pieces of artwork I've seen at art shows either were just numbered or given such vague titles that you could look it at a million different ways & have a million different titles for it. I think that could be a key issue with respect to the weight issue & "the fat lady". Heck, some of my best friends I only knew them as "just another face in the crowd" until we got familiar with each other because I remember faces & physical features better than names. I don't think the lack of a name was a sign of any form of discrimination at all. The character development & their relevance to the overall themes & ideas in the canon are of prime importance to me. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 17:38:10 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:38:10 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178532 Carol wrote: > Dover to Calais is 21 miles (I looked it up), easily covered by > Apparition. Del adds: And they are Muggleborn: they know about such devices as trains, planes, boats and cars. Steal a boat, enchant it to self-propel, go to France or anywhere else, and magically send the boat back or something, and there you go. > As for a language barrier, Fleur and Viktor spoke English, > as did their classmates who spent almost a year at Hogwarts. Many > European Muggles speak English as well. It wouldn't be an > insurmountable problem, Agreed. Being Brits gives them the huge advantage of speaking *the* international language. > Granted, the children couldn't attend Durmstrang, but they > could attend Beauxbatons. Surely, Madame Maxime would be glad to > help if she knew of their plight. And there are apparently other, > smaller, wizarding schools in Europe. Funny, I was thinking right along those lines just this morning. The names of all Muggleborn kids who are supposed to attend Hogwarts are known: McGonagall would simply have to consult the magic quill and note down all the names and addresses of the Muggleborn kids. From there, the Order can help set up a network with foreign schools (whether in Europe or even in, say, the US!) to host those kids who can't go to Hogwarts. I was even thinking that there are ways to get around the little problem of school and transportation fees: find rich donators. There's one readily available too: Harry himself. Bill and Fleur work at Gringotts until March IIRC, so there's ample time to set up a little something with the Goblins (who we know aren't particularly keen on helping the DEs), to have other people discreetly access Harry's vault (since he can't do it himself). I'm sure Harry wouldn't mind, and would in fact be happy to see his money be put to such good use. > I would have liked to see some sort of Underground movement beyond > Pottercast. Me too. Where are the sabotages? Where are the various networks (some to help Muggleborns survive and/or escape, others to undermine LV's reign, and so on)? Pottercast is wonderful, but back then, the Underground radio programs were only one part of a big ensemble. Here, it seems like Pottercast is all there is. > Which leaves Dolohov, the newly identified > Selwyn, and a few others to keep track of all the Muggle-borns in > Britain, with the help of Fenrir Greyback and various crews of > money-seeking thugs with neither brains nor power? Plus a load of Imperio'd people. But still, that just doesn't seem to be enough to me. > The takeover is too quick and involves too few people to make the > situation of the Muggle-borns (except those whose children have been > kidnapped) plausible. I agree. I mean, we are constantly shown, in the other 6 books, how things that can be very problematic for Muggles, are dealt with very easily by wizards. And then suddenly, we are supposed to believe that Muggleborns, with or without their wands, are somehow even more helpless than even normal Muggles would be? That doesn't make any sense to me. > At any rate, Muggle-borns are not Muggles, and you'd think > they'd find magical means to protect themselves or even to fight the > DEs and MoM employees, whom they greatly outnumber, rather than > complying. It's not like unarmed Jews being arrested and dragged off > to concentration camps by armed Nazis. Agreed. If all adult Jews had been trained to use firearms and had had one on them at all times, the Nazis would have had a *much* harder time rounding them up! So the analogy rather falls flat for me. > Rather than submit to the > decree without taking any kind of action, I would think that most > Muggle-borns would either fight or run, taking whatever defensive > measures they could. I agree. I mean, registering as Muggleborn is one thing, but handing over their wand, their precious wand, that extension of themselves that hasn't left them ever since they went to Hogwarts? I just can't believe that the Muggleborns would do that en masse, not even if it meant directly defying the MoM. > I do realize that the Muggle-borns would be fugitives and that they > would most likely lose their homes, but it's implausible that they > would not and could not take some sort of precautions or have some > sort of alternative to becoming as helpless and degraded as Merope. Again, I agree. Wasn't Merope supposed to be an untalented and untrained witch left alone in a world she didn't know? That description doesn't come anywhere close to applying to the Muggleborns. I'd like to add one point: this apparent inability/reluctance of so many Muggleborns to manage/want to live in their own *original* world doesn't sound very healthy to me. I understand that they made a new life for themselves in the WW, but their roots are still in the MW, aren't they? Their parents and siblings also live in the MW. So how come the Muggleborns seem to be so completely disconnected from the MW? Emigrants usually maintain a link to their home country and culture, but the Muggleborns seem to completely abandon all things Muggle behind them. And I don't see this as healthy, neither for them, nor for the WW in general. It smells too much of "social schizophrenia", of split personalities, if you see what I mean. The Statute of Secrecy says that the MW mustn't know about the WW, but it doesn't say anything about the other way around! It doesn't say that the WW shouldn't know anything about the MW, so how come it doesn't, how come the Muggleborns apparently fully abandon their Muggle roots and completely disconnect themselves from the Muggle world? And by doing this, aren't they actually doing exactly what the Purebloodists are preaching: proving that the Muggle World is not as worthy as the Wizarding World? Del From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 19:12:15 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:12:15 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns (Was: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: <56f2b65c0710261029r38bfbd70yb756daea9ceb8c14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178533 > > Silmariel: > So what? Supossedly Sirius made swimming a distance far longer than > the channel, in a pathetic mental and physical state after having been > in jail ten years, and we've seen how DD had no problems swimming like > a much younger man in cold waters, and there are the spells that used > the trichampion wizards, turn into a fish, make an air bubble, etc. > > They can trace illegal portkeys, as if one minds being detected after > the flight. Portkeys do not prevent illegal use, only warn after the > fact, when you are in other country. > Susan replies: But those were really highly skilled wizards -- triwizard champions, DD was the greatest wizard in the world. Sirius was an animagus, an incredibly difficult spell....there are lots of wizards whose powers are MUCH less developed... Susan From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Oct 26 20:40:52 2007 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:40:52 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts teachers' love life WAS: Canon citation requested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > But you do know about Tonks/Lupin and Hagrid/Maxime. It's not all > > teachers we don't know about--or perhaps it's better to say it's > just > > obviously that it's not a rule that we *can't* know about them. > ...> > Alla: > > Having said that I certainly agree with Hagrid being exception from > the rule, since it is cold hard canon fact. Therefore while I find > Hagrid to be the **only** exception from that rule ( that we get to > hear about teachers' love life), I do agree that if there is one > exception, it is not really a valid rule in book universe - e.g if > we can know about Hagrid's love life, why not Dumbledore's. > ... > > But again, I concede that because of Hagrid my rule is not working. > > Amontillada: So it doesn't qualify as a "rule." However, Hagrid is often portrayed as a distinctly atypical teacher. Students and alumni like the Malfoys, for example, call attention to the times when he acts or, in particular, plans classes in unexpected ways. We don't know whether or not the lack of romantic behavior is typical of teachers in other cultures. We see only two teachers, one each from Beauxbatons and Durmstrang--no comparison to know which of their qualities are "typical" of their respective schools or home cultures. Sherry From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Oct 26 20:58:34 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:58:34 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: <015201c81770$70c23190$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: > > > Peggy now: Molly Weasley appeared to be a bit overweight, and it's usually > presented as an endearing quality (except when Draco comments on it). And > although it would be nice if The Fat Lady had a name, no one seems to think > any less of her because of her fatness. > > Peggy > Allie: The Ravenclaw ghost is The Grey Lady, she didn't have a name either. It's not clear if any of the students know her actual name but Harry certainly didn't until she told him. Same with the Bloody Baron. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 21:08:02 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:08:02 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > The Ravenclaw ghost is The Grey Lady, she didn't have a name either. > Same with the Bloody Baron. And don't forget the Fat Friar :-). zanooda, apologizing for the one-liner. From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 19:09:18 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:09:18 -0000 Subject: Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178537 >I offended anyone with that second example. If > the Percy/Crouch Sr. jibe (on p. 54, GoF, UK ed.) is the extent of > homophobic expression in canon, homosexuality would appear to be... > well, pretty much irrelevant in the WW. It's more misogynist, in my > opinion, with the assumption that a wife must be ridiculously > subservient to her husband. > > No, I think it was a homophobic jibe (which I put down to Ron's sexual insecurity - at this point, he had never even kissed a girl, and his general immaturity). Dudley also jeers at Harry "Who's Cedric? Your boyfriend?" However, I would like to point out that Ron makes the exact same jibe at Hermione about Wilkie Twycross when they're learning apparition... ..he's going to pop the question any day now...because Wilkie was going on about how wonderful Hermione was at apparition..and of course, Ron was insecure, because apparition never really was his strong point. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Oct 26 20:17:35 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:17:35 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178538 Wow, this sure sounds like blame the victim stuff to me (why didn't he fight back? whey didn't they do this? why didn't they do that?) You know, in the RW, it's a lot harder than some of you seem to imagine...in my opinion.....It's not so easy to figure out what to do when you're homeless, on the run, without a wand suddenly... Remember, lots of people DID fight back....we hear about Tonks' father Ted overpowering Dawlish and stealing his broom. Xeno Lovegood is publishing an udnderground paper until they kidnap his daughter and hold her ransom. Neville's gran also overpowers Dawlish (poor guy - he is surely shown as inept) and puts him in St. Mungo. At the Battle of Hogwarts, reinforcements include every family member of the Hogwarts students (practially), all the shopowners and residents of Hogsmede). Remember that the press was really supporting LV...they were printing that Harry was the number one enemy of the state and had probably murdered DD. At the same time, they were discrediting DD, because of his flirtation with evil as a youth... The order was trying to get Harry safely out of the Dursleys. They were operating without their beloved and highly effective leader. They were stunned by the perfidy of Snape. They were struggling (some of them) to protect Hogwarts' students from the Carrows. When did they have time to contact wealthy donors, and set up an underground? Harry was busy finding horcruxes... They were busy hiding the Dursleys, setting up various safe houses, etc. Most of them, including Alastor Moody, were relucant to kill people out of hand, or torture them, or put the Imperius Curse on them. It puts one at a BIG disadvantage to try to be scrupulous/fighting the unscrupulous. Also, in these situations, )they came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew so I did not defend them)...lots of people's initial reaction to this kind of terror is to protect themselves, and their families, and to not get involved....they go after the people who are not so powerful or important -- like Mundungus Fletcher (a criminal) or Stan Shunpike (a bus conductor).....or the poor guy in magical maintenance...they first target people with less power, stature, influence or respectability... Susan From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Oct 26 23:31:01 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:31:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance References: Message-ID: <017501c81828$44eadbe0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178539 > marion11111: > I'm going to need to see an overweight character who is more positive than > Slughorn! Shelley: Molly Weasley. Order of the Phoenix member. Brave fighter in the Hogwarts battle. In the end, she even took out Bellatrix. Carol wrote: > I guess my thing was then why did she never give the "fat lady" a > name? If she is so accepting of differences, why was she always just > the "fat lady"? montims: but where is the negative connotation, except in the minds of certain readers? She is the fat lady because she is fat. She could just as well be the spotty lady or the blonde lady - it is a description. Shelley: Look at all the ghosts- the Gray Lady, the Fat Friar, and the paintings- many of those you never get a name for as well. They are just titled as something about them- even Nearly Headless Nick's name almost implies that the "nearly headless" part is way more defining of him than his name. If someone said, "Go talk to Nick the Ghost", new students might say "Who?" But then one would say, "You know the one- Nearly Headless?" "Oh yeah, that ghost!" For the new Gryffindor, it might just be easier to explain that the common room door is behind the "Fat Lady", because that painting itself might be so "large", as well as the woman in it, and that's the defining feature that makes it stick out from all the other portraits in that general location. I agree- it's just a defining feature, not an insult or a judgment of her. She doesn't need a name, because Rowling is painting a visual picture with her words. She does name her best friend though, "Vi" or "Violet", because the Fat Lady talks about her without her being in the scene at the moment for us to get a description of what she looks like. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Sat Oct 27 02:34:25 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:34:25 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: <017501c81828$44eadbe0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178540 Shelley: Look at all the ghosts- the Gray Lady, the Fat Friar, and the paintings-many of those you never get a name for as well. They are just titled as something about them- even Nearly Headless Nick's name almost implies that the "nearly headless" part is way more defining of him than his name. If someone said, "Go talk to Nick the Ghost", new students might say "Who?" But then one would say, "You know the one- Nearly Headless?" "Oh yeah, that ghost!" For the new Gryffindor, it might just be easier to explain that the common room door is behind the "Fat Lady", because that painting itself might be so "large", as well as the woman in it, and that's the defining feature that makes it stick out from all the other portraits in that general location. I agree- it's just a defining feature, not an insult or a judgment of her. She doesn't need a name, because Rowling is painting a visual picture with her words. She does name her best friend though, "Vi" or "Violet", because the Fat Lady talks about her without her being in the scene at the moment for us to get a description of what she looks like. Tiffany: Exactly, sometimes a name is not needed if there's a better description about someone. That's why the "Fat Lady" is just the "Fat Lady" because the painting might be so large as well as the person in it, that it's easier for new Hogwarts students to remember that than her actual name. It's hardly an insult or jdugment by JKR, just that the actual visual image we get is so "larger than life" that we don't need more information. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 02:51:33 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:51:33 -0000 Subject: Acceptance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > > I can't think of any characters who are described as skinny other > than Harry in the first > > book. I don't mean normal weight characters, but people described in > a stereotypical way > > such as "bony." > > Potioncat: > hem hem, > As I said before....Petunia. > > > marion11111: Ah, that's true. I'd forgotten her. And for some reason I think of Filch as skinny, but that might just be thanks to the movies. I suppose the negative trait they both share is "fussiness." From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 27 11:31:33 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:31:33 -0000 Subject: RL-HP breaking up with NT-GW / Draco's Kids / Sirius-Remus/ GG /The Fat Lady Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178542 Potioncat wrote in : << I don't see much difference between Lupin distancing himself from Tonks in this situation and Harry distancing himself from Ginny >> Alla replied in : << to me the difference is that Lupin and Tonks were already married (snip) it is not like Violdemort is hunting LUPIN specifically, no? >> But I wanted to spell it out more clearly: Harry split from Ginny to prevent LV from finding out that he cared for her on the theory that if LV found out that HP was in love with Ginny, LV would kidnap and torture her to lure HP into trying to rescue her, but it was too late for Remus to conceal that he had a relationship with 'Dora' and anyway there's no more reason why LV would want to kidnap and torture Remus's girl than any other Phoenix. I_am_finally_me wrote in : << Draco and his kids will still wanna cause trouble, and start things like all Slytherin Kids >> After Harry and Draco nodded to each other on the train platform, there is no reason to assume that Draco and his kids will still wanna cause trouble, except on the theory that all Slytherins want to cause trouble. That's fine for writing a school story, in which the rivalry of two Houses over who will win the House Cup is a matter of vital importance. Then to the Gryffindors it is true that the Slytherins want to cause trouble (i.e. steal our House cup) and to the Slytherins it is true that the Gryffindors want to cause trouble (i.e. steal our House Cup). But we've gone through the final three books with the contest of good and evil being far more important than House rivalry. I'd like the next generation to achieve that House Unity that the Sorting Hat urged, by reforming the Slytherins if they're really bad, or noticing that they're not all bad if that is the case. Pippin wrote in : << unlike Sirius who definitely had more of a gay vibe, especially in the Worst Memory where he ignored the girls making eyes at him. >> Oh, Sirius was *pretending* to ignore the girls making eyes at him, because he already knew that would make them try even harder. I'm sure he was quite a slut with the witches in his young days. Yes, at the same time that his *heart* belonged to Moony. << But, um, being a metamorphmagus surely Tonks could change her physical sexual characteristics if desired? >> Surely changing her face would be more important than changing her crotch?! Maybe I agree with << I got the impression Lupin's sexual identity was fluid >> because I'm fairly willing to believe he loved and lost (i.e. they were killed) Andrea or Lamia after losing Sirius. But it would awful for 'Dora' and kind of sick for Remus if she had to turn into an imitation Sirius or Andrea or Lamia for her husband to love her. Speaking of Remus, DrCarol wrote in : << he wore shabby clothes (which for some reason could not be mended by magic) >> I suspect clothing is one of those Five Principle Exceptions, thus explaining why Molly couldn't transform Ron's second-hand dress robe into something more modern. DrCarol wrote in : << Grindelwald, who was actually expelled from *Durmstrang* (apparently for torturing his fellow students or experimenting on them in some way like some sort of magical junior Nazi). >> Do we know why Grindelwald was expelled from Durmstrang? I know the Hogwartians think, to be expelled from a Dark Arts school like Durmstrang, he must have done something even worse than Dark Arts or cheating, but my books are packed so I can't check if it says what he actually did. Krum said the circle-triangle-line (has everyone noticed that the initials of the three Peverell brothers, C, A, I, were drawn from that symbol?) was on a wall at Durmstrang where Grindelwald had drawn (carved?) it. Maybe he was expelled for that piece of graffiti vandalism, or its context, like maybe maybe he drew it while lecturing about Death's Hallows to fellow students in direct contradiction to a professor who had declared that they did not exist, were nothing but a children's tale. Carol Cinders wrote in : << Well, what about with people that are overweight? Does JK not like them? I mean there was "the fat lady". She never even had a name, but I don't remember anyone having a cow about that, though it bothered me all along. She deserved to be more than just "the fat lady." >> If she wanted to be called Queen Margot or Saint Sexburga, she could have told the students so. The Gryffindors can't get into their living quarters unless she opens the door for them, so she has great influence over what they say to her. va32h wrote in : << Maybe the artist who painted the Fat Lady didn't give her a name. Maybe the painting is entitled: The Fat Lady. Not every subject in a work of art gets a name from his or her creator. >> I get the feeling that all the paintings at Hogwarts are actually portraits of dead people and that is why they're able to travel from picture to picture and have conversations with live people. I don't know whether Sir Cadogan's pony, and the cow that The Fat Lady hid behind in another painting, are actualy a real dead pony and a real dead cow, and I'm not sure if any of the book paintings contain minor characters like the little girl who hands flowers to the big lady in one of the movie paintings -- if yes, would the little girl be a real portrait of someone who died at a much older and larger age? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 27 11:41:39 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:41:39 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Carol wrote: > > Dover to Calais is 21 miles (I looked it up), easily covered by > > Apparition. > > Del adds: > And they are Muggleborn: they know about such devices as trains, > planes, boats and cars. Steal a boat, enchant it to self-propel, go to > France or anywhere else, and magically send the boat back or > something, and there you go. Geoff: You don't really need that even. In PS, Harry got around quite happily on British Rail on his own and helped with using the London Underground in PS and OOTP. I would have thought that a Muggleborn who knew the real world could go to Waterloo, get a seat on a Eurostar and be in Paris in just a few hours. (two and a quarter after mid-November this year). From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 27 13:37:30 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:37:30 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178544 I suggest a new game! Where do authors get their characters? I've heard (but don't recall where) that authors put a bit of themselves into their characters. With that in mind, we should be able to see hints of the characters in JKR, or hints of her in them. If we gathered enough characters and somehow merged them together, would we have Jo? Which character sometimes reminds you of JKR? Or, Does JKR ever display traits of one of her characters? Cite canon or at least refer to it. No characters off limits this round. Potioncat, who has compartmentalized all deep, dark thoughts about DH into a tidy little box and hid it behind tasseled shawls, poufs, and pictures of too cute kittens. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Oct 27 14:17:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:17:58 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > Wow, this sure sounds like blame the victim stuff to me (why didn't > he fight back? whey didn't they do this? why didn't they do that?) > > You know, in the RW, it's a lot harder than some of you seem to > imagine...in my opinion.....It's not so easy to figure out what to do > when you're homeless, on the run, without a wand suddenly... Magpie: I can see how it does sound like that, what with calling Muggleborns "pathetic" but in reading the thread I think it's more just about sloppy world-building, which I totally agree with. I tihnk JKR felt like she had to write a sprawling story where the WW went under like WWII, but she's really not interested or able to write a story on that level. She's more about individual people. So you wind up, imo, with all these references to wider changes that are recognizable from history without convincingly showing how it happened. She doesn't write a real resistance movement, she writes some people trying to keep up morale until Harry saves them all. Writing a real resistance movement or a real study of how the world could be taken over and become this way just isn't the story she's writing. When I was reading I don't remember specifically being brought up short by the Muggle-borns, but that was because I just thought they were there to sort of stand in for "the world is in misery! save us Harry!". But overall I did think she's created an "Idiot World" as it's called in bad movies. "When did the Order have time to set up an underground movement when they were busy moving the Dursleys and Harry to different houses that day?" just kind of reinforces that. There are individuals who stand up to people when the plot demands it but on the world-scale it was, imo, something where you just had to accept it even if it didn't ring true for you at all. Even the guys who have been preparing for this and aren't hiding their heads in the sand are strangely useless. Not stooping to the level of your enemy does not mean you make yourself completely ineffective, even if that means killing or forcing people to do things. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 27 15:12:24 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:12:24 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178546 Potioncat: > I suggest a new game! > > Which character sometimes reminds you of JKR? Or, Does JKR ever display > traits of one of her characters? Cite canon or at least refer to it. No > characters off limits this round. Ceridwen: I don't know if I should participate in a game invented by someone who has created a Reader!Horcrux: > Potioncat, who has compartmentalized all deep, dark thoughts about DH > into a tidy little box and hid it behind tasseled shawls, poufs, and > pictures of too cute kittens. Ceridwen again: Especially one that gives off Umbridge vibes, but I'll be a sacrificial guinea pig. I trust that opinion also comes into this, so I will put Snape forward as an alter ego. The character was based in part on a teacher she disliked who gave her bad marks and called on her in class when she didn't know the answers. The other teacher who became part of Snape, from what I hear, didn't give Rowling a chance in the first class, relegating her to the "dunce" side of the room. These teachers were not Ms. Rowling's favorite people. Snape is portrayed as not being able to let go of grudges. By creating this "deeply horrible" character, she releases her own grudges. I also advance Petunia. The physical description, of a thin blonde woman, could conceivably be a description of the author by the author, from a low-self-esteem POV, as she may have had at the beginning of the series. Petunia is best known for disliking Harry and for spoiling her son, Dudley. I think that Rowling got so attached to the character of Harry that she was unable to put him through the wringer fully. The thing that most makes me think of Rowling when I read Petunia in DH, though, was her consuming desire to be a part of Lily's world when she couldn't be. It was actually heartbreaking to think of that child seeing all the cool things her sister could do, and practically begging to be able to be a part of it. I think this trait could apply to more people than Rowling: wouldn't we all want to be magical and have the ability to have the laundry fold itself, to Apparate, to Levicorpus friends and enemies? Sure. Dumbledore. He was a twinkly-eyed mentor, but he had his dark side. What author doesn't manipulate the actions of their characters to some extent or another? Characters take on their own lives, and it's up to an author to shepherd them back into the plot. As author, Rowling is the Creatrix of the WW and the Supreme Mover of the plot. She is Dumbledore's Dumbledore, and maybe the irony struck her. Minerva McGonagall, while having affection for the children under her charge, comes off as a tight-lipped prude at times. While Rowling never got nearly as tight-lipped as Minerva, she did express some surprise at people assuming they would be Sorted into Slytherin, or having an attraction to the "bad boys" of the series. I suppose Hermione, Rowling's stated self-insert, should be mentioned. Since I didn't see Rowling as a child, though, I'll have to take her word on that. Ceridwen. From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 27 14:55:13 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:55:13 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178547 > Magpie: > I can see how it does sound like that, what with calling > Muggleborns "pathetic" but in reading the thread I think it's more just > about sloppy world-building, which I totally agree with. I tihnk JKR > felt like she had to write a sprawling story where the WW went under > like WWII, but she's really not interested or able to write a story on that level. Celoneth: I think JKR put herself into an inextricable box when she decided to make the books centered around the Hogwarts timeframe. The books have to be wrapped up w/in Harry's 7 years at Hogwarts hence everything has to be wrapped up when his last year is about to end. This approach has to sacrifice a lot of realism and believability to work. I agree that she tends to focus more on individuals rather then a larger schema which also creates the same effect. Therefore we have a war suddenly breaking out in full force, with too few DEs to make it believable which requires that the rest of the WW be pathetic in order for the DEs to be able to take over and for Harry to be able to save everyone in a year's time. There just isn't space or time to build up a proper war and a proper resistance which was one of my main problems w/ DH. I found the first Voldemort war far more interesting - it was a drawn out war with decently matched factions and you could see it having a huge impact on the WW as people had to adjust to living in such situations. With DH you immediately go from relative peace to all out war w/ little or no build up, with the evil faction being led by an increasingly insane and irrational Voldemort and no one on the other side has the tactical ability to counter him - when many on that side are professionally trained fighters and otherwise smart persons. As for the muggle-borns being "pathetic," I tend to agree - but they have to be - otherwise the DEs would lose in an instant. Had they fled or refused to give up their wands and fought then the entire desperate feeling of DH would disappear because the DEs, apart from a handful, seem to be complete idiots. Had there been some build-up or focus on the general WW instead of just Harry's PoV then it could be better developed but it would change the entire book structure to do that. Celoneth From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 17:21:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:21:32 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178548 Potioncat wrote: > > I suggest a new game! > > Where do authors get their characters? I've heard (but don't recall where) that authors put a bit of themselves into their characters. With that in mind, we should be able to see hints of the characters in JKR, or hints of her in them. If we gathered enough characters and somehow merged them together, would we have Jo? > > Which character sometimes reminds you of JKR? Or, Does JKR ever display traits of one of her characters? Cite canon or at least refer to it. No characters off limits this round. > > Potioncat, who has compartmentalized all deep, dark thoughts about DH into a tidy little box and hid it behind tasseled shawls, poufs, and pictures of too cute kittens. > Carol responds: I'm not sure if this counts, but Lupin's use of chocolate as an antidote for Dementor-induced hopelessness always made me wonder if JKR used chocolate as a cure for depression when she was facing poverty, divorce, and/or her mother's death. I would guess from the sweets cluttering her desk (along with chewing fum, which I suspect is a substitute for cigarettes and consequently doesn't remind me of any important WW character), I suspect that, like DD, she has "a fondness for Muggle sweets." Possibly, her favorite flavor of jam, like DD's, is raspberry, or maybe, like Harry, she likes treacle tart. Lupin's perpetual shabbiness may remind her of the days when she, too, was unemployed. There's a bit of Sirius/Severus in her, too, in her seeming inability to get past old grudges (the chemistry teacher and whoever Lockhart is modeled on, for example). And it just occurred to me, as an older sister myself: JKR has a younger sister. Might some part of the Lily/Petunia relationship (the early protectiveness or the later jealousy) be based on that real-life relationship? Just guessing here and not seriously speculating. Biographical criticism has its dangers and drawbacks, particularly with regard to living authors, so I'm only playing a game, not asking questions for which I want answers. Carol, hoping that Umbridge isn't based on any traits in JKR herself! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 20:01:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:01:03 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178549 Magpie: > I can see how it does sound like that, what with calling Muggleborns "pathetic" but in reading the thread I think it's more just about sloppy world-building, which I totally agree with. I tihnk JKR felt like she had to write a sprawling story where the WW went under like WWII, but she's really not interested or able to write a story on that level. She's more about individual people. So you wind up, imo, with all these references to wider changes that are recognizable from history without convincingly showing how it happened. She doesn't write a real resistance movement, she writes some people trying to keep up morale until Harry saves them all. Writing a real resistance movement or a real study of how the world could be taken over and become this way just isn't the story she's writing. > > When I was reading I don't remember specifically being brought up short by the Muggle-borns, but that was because I just thought they were there to sort of stand in for "the world is in misery! save us Harry!". > But overall I did think she's created an "Idiot World" as it's called in bad movies. "When did the Order have time to set up an underground movement when they were busy moving the Dursleys and Harry to different houses that day?" just kind of reinforces that. There are individuals who stand up to people when the plot demands it but on the world-scale it was, imo, something where you just had to accept it even if it didn't ring true for you at all. Even the guys who have been preparing for this and aren't hiding their heads in the sand are strangely useless. Not stooping to the level of your enemy does not mean you make yourself completely ineffective, even if that means killing or forcing people to do things. Carol responds: Exactly. It's not a question of sympathizing with the Death Eaters or not sympathizing with helplessness and homelessness. It's a question of believability or verisimilitude. it's as if the highly competent Muggle-borns, whom JKR has taken pains to depict as being at least as skilled and powerful as the Pure-bloods and Half-bloods (with Hermione, and, to a lesser degree, Lily, as her chief examples), and yet, suddenly, these Muggle-borns, fully qualified wizards with a Hogwarts education and wands they know how to use to defend themselves or disguise themselves (not to mention that, with the hints that Voldemort was about to take over and memories of VWI, it would have been advisable to stock up on Poly-juice potion if you didn't know how to turn yourself into an armchair or a dog and weren't a born Metamorphmagus). Not only do the Order members do little beyond getting Harry out of Privet Drive and creating safe houses for themselves and a few others (couldn't they have at least protected Ted Tonks?) and broadcasting an occasional Pottercast, but the few who do effectively resist at least to some degree turn out (Hermione excepted) not to be Muggle-borns at all. Gran Longbottom's story is both amusing and inspiring, though off-page, but she's a Pure-blood, as is Neville, the leader of the resistance at Hogwarts. And Luna, whose courage and optimism contrast so markedly with her father's cowardice (though, admittedly, he was choosing between what was right and his daughter's life, not an easy choice for anyone), is the child of a witch and a wizard. The Muggle-borns are represented by Colin Creevey, presumably still sixteen though he's a sixth year, whose role is to die a courageous innocent. But where is the vaunted equality of the Muggle-borns, about which we've read so much? Certainly, they have the same rights as Pure-bloods or Half-bloods (or Muggles) to life and freedom and happiness and, since they're magical, to own and use wands, but why do they succumb so quickly and easily and completely (with little help from anyone else) to the will of a small number of DEs, a Dark Lord who loses interest in them and goes looking for the Elder Wand, and a corrupt Ministry busy churning out pink pamphlets? It's not that I don't feel compassion for people forced from their homes and deprived of what belongs to them (in this case, wands). It's just that, if I stop to think about it, the whole situation seems contrived (as do the various coincidences, without which the Trio would not have found a single Horcrux). No one is arguing that the Muggle-borns deserve to be mistreated. We're only wondering why they don't take advantage of their own skill and power to find some alternative to begging in Diagon Alley. Even living in a cave (preferably protected by defensive charms) would be preferable. Carol, wondering what happened to the confiscated wands and whether they now consider Umbridge or Yaxley their masters From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Oct 27 19:25:11 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:25:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: RL-HP breaking up with NT-GW / Draco's Kids / Sirius-Remus/ GG /The Fat Lady References: Message-ID: <010201c818cf$19c00290$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178550 > Alla replied in > : > > << to me the difference is that Lupin and Tonks were already married > (snip) it is not like Violdemort is hunting LUPIN specifically, no? >> Catlady: > But I wanted to spell it out more clearly: Harry split from Ginny to > prevent LV from finding out that he cared for her on the theory that > if LV found out that HP was in love with Ginny, LV would kidnap and > torture her to lure HP into trying to rescue her, but it was too late > for Remus to conceal that he had a relationship with 'Dora' and anyway > there's no more reason why LV would want to kidnap and torture Remus's > girl than any other Phoenix. Shelley: I strongly disagree with that last line, because canon contradicts it. Reread that first chapter. Lord Voldemort talked about pruning family trees, did he not? Thus, he did indeed target Tonks and Lupin specifically, because Tonks was related to the Malfoys and to Bellatrix. Tonks says it again in that scene where the Death Eaters went after all the fake Harrys- Bellatrix went for her specifically to kill her. Harry split with Ginny under the general premise that she MIGHT be targeted, but with Lupin and Tonks, we know they specifically were targeted. It is reasonable to assume that Snape might have spilled to this couple that they were in immediate danger from LV to be murdered, but if they didn't know if before Bella went after Tonks, certainly they knew it then. From aslitumerkan at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 17:36:41 2007 From: aslitumerkan at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-9?Q?Asl=FD_T=FCmerkan?=) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:36:41 +0300 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6467e1f0710271036n1562b4b1r7a9091b603ebf710@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178551 Katie: and I find Harry's final remark about Kreacher entirely out of character and very distasteful Asli: Katie, the last thing I remember it that Hermione and Harry decided that it was too risky to call Kreacher. What do you mean? (I was curious, thanks) Asli From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 28 03:40:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:40:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <6467e1f0710271036n1562b4b1r7a9091b603ebf710@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178552 > Katie: > and I find > Harry's final remark about Kreacher entirely out of character and > very distasteful > > Asli: > Katie, the last thing I remember it that Hermione and Harry decided that it > was too risky to call Kreacher. What do you mean? (I was curious, thanks) Magpie: I assume she means Harry's very last line after the battle (where Kreacher led the House Elves) where Harry thinks about getting Kreacher to get him a sandwich (claiming his rightful place in the WW for the future as master). -m From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 05:54:36 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:54:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178553 Magpie: > I assume she means Harry's very last line after the battle (where > Kreacher led the House Elves) where Harry thinks about getting Kreacher > to get him a sandwich (claiming his rightful place in the WW for the > future as master). > > -m > Doddie here: I always thought that Kreacher was the one individual he could ask for something that wouldn't ask questions, or demand anything in return...i.e. Kreacher would see how tired and exhausted Harry know he had years to hear the story or ask questions, or garner his freedom if so desired....if there was one characteristic Kreacher had..it was perception...I like to think Harry may have garnered as much throughout his ordeals; and perhaps ordered said sandwich to grant Kreacher his freedom where upon he refused despite the full outfit aside from the hat, and after Kreacher telling his tale; Harry asked what Kreacher wanted and then sent him to serve the malfoy family. LOL Funny but a free elf anytime he wanted, Harry's house elf serving the malfoy's, probably kept them in check for years to come.(with the Malfoy's ever wondering how and why their schemes weren't working and never figuring it out!) LOL I like that..not so much for the houseelves plight...but because Kreacher had the last bastion of attachment to the black family and I get the feeling that he wants to see it until its end. It also shows the "master of said elf" which in my scenario would have been Harry, or if a fluke like Dobby...Kreacher... Poor Malfoys, who choose not to hire regular employees. Doddie, (who often wonders if Hermione did have a word or two with DD regarding houselves at Hogwarts...and if this was why the MOM had a funded department that included the treatment of house elves and finding them placement--probably extremely shameful to them.) From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 28 08:51:51 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:51:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter, The Final Chapter or just the beginning??? In-Reply-To: <471FF90E.9030800@sprynet.com> References: <471FF90E.9030800@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <47244DA7.2010209@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 178554 > Bart: > We've been through this before, but it bears repeating: Marion Zimmer > Bradley tried this with her Darkover series. She ended up getting sued > by a fan writer, and lost a couple of years of work because of it. It's > a nice thought, but unfortunately, Lidofsky's Law states, "If it's > legal, and you can make money from it, somebody's going to do it." > > Bart Random832: http://www.fanworks.org/writersresource/?action=define&authorid=53&tool=fanpolicy As with many such things, it seems this is not quite as simple as that. Sources appear to differ rather wildly on the extent of the fan work in question (whether it was a full novel-length piece, a short story, or, according to at least one of the quotes, what would in today's fanfic world be called a "plot bunny"), the nature of its publication (was it published in a fan-zine, sent in unsolicited to MZB, etc?), MZB's involvement (anywhere from 'totally unaware of it until threats started coming in' to 'wanted to use the idea and asked the fic author for permission'), etc. There doesn't appear to have ever _been_ an actual lawsuit, just the threat and/or fear of one. This is all assuming that they even all describe a single incident. Also, there does appear to have been, at some point in time after the controversy, a release form that a fanfic author could sign, in exchange for permission to write. Further reading: http://www.mercedeslackey.com/am_games.html Mercedes Lackey, in 2002, on fanfiction (note that some of the answers here are a bit weak on how intellectual property law actually works, and one extremely rude response that totally misconstrues what is being asked shows that some of these policies are likely based more in paranoia than any fundamental reason an author could not allow fanfiction) P.S. A more substantial barrier to JKR allowing fanfiction is likely the fact that she apparently doesn't own the characters, names, or "related indicia" (whatever that is), anymore: those belong to Warner Brothers. --Random832 From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Oct 28 09:21:34 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:21:34 -0400 Subject: Werewolves and Money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4724549E.6070404@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 178555 And now for something completely different from the weighty topics that have dominated this list for the past week or so Carol wrote: [of Lupin] > or he found some way to scrounge up a few sickles. Galleons and Knuts only, surely? Or, rather more seriously, how _do_ werewolves who live within wizarding society deal with money? Either they simply don't handle sickles (and would have to explain this at every transaction); they wear gloves, use tissue paper to isolate the coins from their hands, etc; or the coins are in fact made of some base metal, rather than the silver (and, for Galleons, presumably not gold either) that we've always thought they are. --Random832 From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 06:01:17 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:01:17 -0000 Subject: "Pathetic" Muggle-borns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > I agree. I mean, we are constantly shown, in the other 6 books, how > things that can be very problematic for Muggles, are dealt with very > easily by wizards. And then suddenly, we are supposed to believe that > Muggleborns, with or without their wands, are somehow even more > helpless than even normal Muggles would be? That doesn't make any > sense to me. afn replies: Muggle-borns like those begging in Diagon Alley in DH spent their lives from 11 years old on learning the skills of working and succeeding in the WW. What they have been educated to do is taken from them and they are without alternative skills. Muggles presumably from age 11 on have educational opportunities, training, and socialization for adult work and fitting in with the MW that Muggle- born wizards and witches under LV lack due to training only in magic as opposed to RW skills not needing wands. Also, we only see *some* Muggle-borns begging in Diagon Alley. Maybe they represent the extreme minority of Muggleborns educated in the WW and unable to cope. Though they are not exactly like the untrained Merope in HBP or the isolated Trelawney thrown out in OoP, they may represent the least able to adapt and change back to the RW and not the majority of Muggle-borns deprived or asked to hand over wands in DH. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 28 14:32:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:32:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178557 > Doddie here: > > I always thought that Kreacher was the one individual he could ask for > something that wouldn't ask questions, or demand anything in > return...i.e. Kreacher would see how tired and exhausted Harry know he > had years to hear the story or ask questions, or garner his freedom if > so desired....if there was one characteristic Kreacher had..it was > perception... Magpie: No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. Whether or not he's perceptive of Harry needing rest doesn't make him much different from any other House Elf. (Maybe Kreacher needed a rest--he was in the battle too.) Any House Elf would get Harry a sandwich no questions asked. Harry calls on this elf because he's his personal slave. Doddie I like to think Harry may have garnered as much > throughout his ordeals; and perhaps ordered said sandwich to grant > Kreacher his freedom where upon he refused despite the full outfit > aside from the hat, and after Kreacher telling his tale; Harry asked > what Kreacher wanted and then sent him to serve the malfoy family. Magpie: Or perhaps he set Kreacher on fire. In the book all we've got is Harry calling on his slave to make him a sandwich. Any house elf would have gotten Harry a sandwich with no questions asked. They're slaves. That's what they do. Granting Kreacher, or any of them, their freedom is out of the question if they don't ask for it, which Kreacher wouldn't. Doddie: Poor Malfoys, who choose not to > hire regular employees. Magpie; I'm not sure what you mean here. We don't know much about how the Malfoys run their house or if they had any other House Elves besides Dobby, who's been gone for years. > Doddie, > (who often wonders if Hermione did have a word or two with DD > regarding houselves at Hogwarts...and if this was why the MOM had a > funded department that included the treatment of house elves and > finding them placement--probably extremely shameful to them.) Magpie: Hermione didn't need to talk to Dumbledore. He was on her side about House Elves and had offered them all freedom. I don't recall the MoM having any department for finding House Elves placement, but I could just be forgetting. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 28 15:29:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:29:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178558 > Magpie: > No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. Pippin: Like he was Sirius's slave and did what Sirius said? Kreacher's clearly one of those House Elves who's more than capable of evading orders when he wants to. Which, IMO, is the reason that Harry wanted to call on him, not another Elf, for a sandwich. If Kreacher didn't want to belong to Harry any more, or didn't want to fetch a sandwich, Harry would know about it, IMO. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Oct 28 15:46:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:46:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178559 > > Magpie: > > No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. > > Pippin: > Like he was Sirius's slave and did what Sirius said? Kreacher's > clearly one of those House Elves who's more than capable of > evading orders when he wants to. Which, IMO, is the reason > that Harry wanted to call on him, not another Elf, for a sandwich. > > If Kreacher didn't want to belong to Harry any more, or didn't > want to fetch a sandwich, Harry would know about it, IMO. Magpie: Yes, as he was Sirius' slave and had to do as Sirius said. Just as when he was Harry's slave he had to do what Harry said. The fact that Kreacher now would just love to fix Harry a sandwich because he loves being his slave does not make Kreacher any less than Harry's slave. If you're suggesting that Harry called on Kreacher due to yet another convoluted way of saying exactly the opposite of what seems to be being said--that Harry is here asking Kreacher for a sandwich because he hopes that if Kreacher objects to making him a sandwich at that moment he will say so and so Harry will not really be acting like a slavemaster, I don't buy it. Harry's been calling on Kreacher for 2 books now because he belongs to him. When Kreacher didn't want to do something Harry just had to come up with more orders to make sure he was forced to do it anyway, complaints or no. Now, since Kreacher likes being Harry's slave, he no longer has any reason to think Kreacher would do that when Harry's asking him for a sandwich. Having a happy slave is easier, it doesn't make him not a slave. Harry is a "good" slavemaster. -m -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 28 16:32:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:32:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178560 > Magpie: > If you're suggesting that Harry called on Kreacher due to yet another > convoluted way of saying exactly the opposite of what seems to be > being said--that Harry is here asking Kreacher for a sandwich because > he hopes that if Kreacher objects to making him a sandwich at that > moment he will say so and so Harry will not really be acting like a > slavemaster, I don't buy it. Pippin: No, I'm suggesting that Harry knows that Kreacher will be as hurt and miserable as Winky if Harry were to insist on making his own sandwiches, and that if making a sandwich at that moment would create difficulties for Kreacher, Kreacher would let him know and Harry would care about it. If Kreacher were a wage slave, how would it be different? As for whether Harry *would* care... If the dementors blew a different personality into Dudley, then Snape blew a different personality into Harry. Harry, on the floor in Dumbledore's office, had a spiritual death and re-awakening. He had hit bottom, nothing he could learn in the pensieve was as bad as the reality he was facing (canon paraphrase.) And what he learned in the pensieve was where seeking glory and vengeance, as Snape did, would lead him. We don't see him soul-searching just as we don't see Dudley doing it, because while Harry has grown up, the narrator still has the outlook of a bright, interested preteen. As Bettelheim says, the child does not grow sad and then cry, he just cries. He does not get angry and hit, he just hits. Harry, from a child's perspective, would not feel remorse and change his ways, he would just change. And that's what we see, IMO. The abusive personality that Harry was developing was an outgrowth, as it was for Snape, of his quest for vengeance. Fortunately, unlike Snape, Harry managed to abandon the quest before he became habituated to the pleasures of cruelty. As for the implication that by not abolishing slavery, JKR is somehow saying that it's good... I seem to remember from history class that back when slavery was a live issue in America, there were abolitionists who were in favor of gradually abolishing slavery, and radical abolitionists who wanted slavery ended at once. While the moral purity of the latter position can't be doubted, there was very little those people could do for actual slaves, because they (the radicals) were regarded as cranks and few people would listen to them. Although we remember the Civil War now as having been fought to free the slaves, that was not the perception of people at the time, and they probably wouldn't have gone to war over it. JKR's world reflects that reality, not history as we would like it to have been, IMO. Pippin who is not an expert on the civil war and will gladly accept correction ( discussions of matters raised in this post not related to HP should go on OT-Chatter, please) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 16:32:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:32:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. > > Pippin: > Like he was Sirius's slave and did what Sirius said? Kreacher's > clearly one of those House Elves who's more than capable of > evading orders when he wants to. Which, IMO, is the reason > that Harry wanted to call on him, not another Elf, for a sandwich. > > If Kreacher didn't want to belong to Harry any more, or didn't > want to fetch a sandwich, Harry would know about it, IMO. > > Pippin > lizzyben: Kreacher loved Harry & would serve him without question. Harry knew that. He'd also just fought in a battle, but Harry doesn't stop to consider Kreacher's own feelings or need for rest. Instead, he thinks of him as a servant & labor-saving device. He's assumed his proper place in the wizarding world & learned how to treat house elves. I think it's very interesting that JKR chose to include that line at all. It's the very last line of the novel, after all. The last sentence is important, often relating the final message or theme of the novel - and here that message is Harry wanting "Kreacher to get him a sandwich." People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave owner. It's an arc, just not the arc people were expecting. It's more like the arc of "The Godfather", where the protagonist at first rejects the immoral & illegal actions of his Mafia father, grows to accept & repeat those actions, and finally assumes his role as the new "Godfather." The movie ends with a minion kissing his hand & calling him "Don Corleone." In HP, the novel ends with the hero wanting a slave to fetch him a sandwich. The message is the same - the protagonist has gone from rejection to acceptance of the values of his world, & has assumed his proper place as the ultimate embodiment & inheritor of these values. In the epilogue, I can imagine Harry going to work in his position as head Auror for the MOM, and noting with satisfaction that the beautiful "Fountain of Magical Brethren" statues are back in their proper place. He thinks that the little house-elf looks a lot like Kreacher, and smiles. He doesn't see the falseness anymore. lizzyben From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 28 16:56:11 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 28 Oct 2007 16:56:11 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/28/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1193590571.8.95875.m57@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178562 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 28, 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 va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 28 17:03:10 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:03:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > No, I'm suggesting that Harry knows that Kreacher will be as hurt > and miserable as Winky if Harry were to insist on making his own > sandwiches, and that if making a sandwich at that moment would > create difficulties for Kreacher, Kreacher would let him know and > Harry would care about it. If Kreacher were a wage slave, > how would it be different? va32h: This makes no sense to me. Nothing in the text says (or even suggests IMO) that Harry ever intended to make his own sandwich and only wanted to give Kreacher the option of doing it for him to make Kreacher feel better. "thinking now only of the four-poster bed lying waiting for him in Gryffindor Tower, and wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there." (pg 749). What part of that phrase suggests that Harry's original plan was to nip down to the kitchen and fix his own sandwich? Harry is thinking *only* of going to bed according to the text. Then it occurs to him that Kreacher could bring him a sandwich. > As for whether Harry *would* care... > > If the dementors blew a different personality into Dudley, then > Snape blew a different personality into Harry. Harry, on the floor > in Dumbledore's office, had a spiritual death and re-awakening. > He had hit bottom, nothing he could learn in the pensieve was as bad > as the reality he was facing (canon paraphrase.) And what he learned > in the pensieve was where seeking glory and vengeance, as Snape > did, would lead him. va32h: In terms of Harry's feelings toward Kreacher, I saw those as being totally resolved after the Kreacher's Tale chapter. Harry felt sympathy for the elf, listened to Hermione's advice as to how to treat Kreacher, and thus treated Kreacher kindly all while accepting Kreacher's role as Harry's slave. When Harry lived at 12GP, he neither said nor thought anything in canon that would suggest he was uncomfortable with having his meals cooked, robes laundered, and house cleaned by Kreacher. Based on the description in the chapter "Magic is Might" - the little household at 12GP is going along just fine. Harry requires no soul-searching or spiritual awakening regarding Kreacher. Harry accepted his role as Kreacher's master. I see no change in Harry's attitude toward Kreacher from that chapter to the sentence quoted above. > As for the implication that by not abolishing slavery, JKR is somehow > saying that it's good... va32h: The problem is that elves cannot be entirely analogous to slavery because elves - according to canon - are biologically and inherently happy as slaves. I don't think JKR is saying slavery is good. I think she's saying that elves are not humans, and we can't just say "well humans wouldn't be happy this way so they can't possibly be happy that way either." Someone else suggested - ages ago - that elves in HP were more analogous to dogs. I think that's very apt comparison. A dog doesn't think the way a human does and it's pointless to project how we might feel if we were being treated the way a dog is treated, because the dog just doesn't feel the same way we do. But that doesn't mean that the dog (or elf) doesn't deserve to be treated kindly or that there aren't certain responsibilities one bears as the owner of a dog (or elf). > Pippin > who is not an expert on the civil war and will gladly accept correction > ( discussions of matters raised in this post not related to HP > should go on OT-Chatter, please) va32h How does one transport a thread from one list to another? Because yes, I would argue with some of the things you suggested regarding the Civil War. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 28 17:36:56 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:36:56 -0000 Subject: Molly's clock In-Reply-To: <015e01c81771$66ea8d10$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178564 > Prep0strus: > The one thing I DIDN'T like about the clock was that when Voldemort > returned, it was always set to 'mortal danger' for everyone. Seems > like a pretty useless item then. > > > So in other words it needs recalibrating periodically. If 'Mortal Peril' is now the 'default position' it would have been of more use if it could have been magically reset to reflect that. So its 'Mortal Peril' setting would then reflect a much higher likelihood of harm than the baseline. All the other settings would then have come back into play. Karen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 28 18:04:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:04:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178565 > va32h: > > This makes no sense to me. Nothing in the text says (or even suggests > IMO) that Harry ever intended to make his own sandwich and only > wanted to give Kreacher the option of doing it for him to make > Kreacher feel better. Pippin: We learn in OOP that the House Elves are insulted by Hermione's attempts to free them and are refusing to clean Gryffindor Tower. Harry knows that refusing to let a House Elf perform its normal duties is considered an insult. > va32h: > > The problem is that elves cannot be entirely analogous to slavery > because elves - according to canon - are biologically and inherently > happy as slaves. Pippin: Huh? Canon never says anything about biology. It says that House Elves are enchanted. Until the enchantments are lifted it's impossible to say whether House Elves are naturally and inherently happy as slaves. But probably not, or it wouldn't have been necessary to enchant them. As far as we know, the enchantments are permanent, and we see that the effect of having lived under them can't easily be reversed even if the Elf is freed. But since magic cannot make one love, those House Elves who love their masters must do so genuinely and not because of magic. Harry knows that Kreacher loves him, and so, IMO, thinking of asking Kreacher for a sandwich would be less exploitive than asking another Elf, because Kreacher would be happy to do it anyway, out of love. If he'd been at the Burrow, he might have wondered whether Molly would make him a sandwich -- that wouldn't be because he thinks it's only a woman's job to cook. Harry doesn't need to think all this, because JKR has already explained all of it. vah32 > How does one transport a thread from one list to another? Because > yes, I would argue with some of the things you suggested regarding the > Civil War. Pippin: I see you are already a member, for those who aren't join here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ Then start a new thread, with "from HPFGU" in the subject line and paste in the text you'd like to reply to. Pippin From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Sun Oct 28 18:18:27 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:18:27 -0000 Subject: DD Gay? (was Re: JKR messed up........ no.) In-Reply-To: <013901c815c6$3f2311f0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178566 Quite frankly if it wasn't for Dumbledore's undeniable fashion sense I'd be inclined to blame Rowling for pandering but, stereotypical trait though it is, that is enough for me to accept that maybe this was always her conception of the character. Upon reflection I can't say it really changes anything, except perhaps to make the brief 'friendship' with Grindelwald more tragic. Rowling does seem to be implying that that first disastrous love affair pretty much ruined DD's romantic life forever, which granted can happen but one would think a hundred and fifteen years would give him plenty of time to get over it! Frankly I am most annoyed because DD's new sexual orientation rather messes up my fanfic, which gives him descendants, but hey - it's AU anyways so what the heck? I would like to take issue with those who'd like to read something 'bad' into DD's relationships with Harry or Tom Riddle or even Snape. IMO there is no trace of any sexuality in any of them. I see no reason why a Gay man shouldn't have paternal and nurturing feelings, do you? From va32h at comcast.net Sun Oct 28 18:44:16 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:44:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > We learn in OOP that the House Elves are insulted by Hermione's > attempts to free them and are refusing to clean Gryffindor Tower. > Harry knows that refusing to let a House Elf perform its normal > duties is considered an insult. va32h: Now it's my turn to say "huh?" Yes I know that House Elves are insulted by Hermione's attempts to free them...that doesn't explain how you extrapolated "Harry thought about making his own sandwich but then realized that Kreacher would be wounded if Harry didn't offer him the chance to do it. And Harry also understood that Kreacher was the sort of elf who wouldn't obey an order unless he really wanted to so Harry felt confident that if he asked Kreacher to bring him a sandwich Kreacher would only do so because Kreacher really wanted to - and this represents a spiritual awakening for Harry in re house elves" from the phrase: "he turned away from the painted portraits thinking only of the four-poster bed lying waiting for him in Gryffindor Tower and wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there." If that's what you think - well okay that's what you've imagined. But I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of that phrase. va32h From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 20:05:29 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:05:29 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178568 Potioncat: > I suggest a new game! > > Where do authors get their characters? I've heard (but don't recall > where) that authors put a bit of themselves into their characters. With > that in mind, we should be able to see hints of the characters in JKR, > or hints of her in them. If we gathered enough characters and somehow > merged them together, would we have Jo? > > Which character sometimes reminds you of JKR? Or, Does JKR ever display > traits of one of her characters? Cite canon or at least refer to it. No > characters off limits this round. > > Potioncat, who has compartmentalized all deep, dark thoughts about DH > into a tidy little box and hid it behind tasseled shawls, poufs, and > pictures of too cute kittens. lizzyben: Well, here's my list & you did say no one was off limits! - Snape - Vindictive & petty, unable to get over past grudges, oversensitive to perceived slights & injuries - leading to elaborate plans for revenge. Snape's also the representation of grief, and of endless, hidden, mourning for a lost loved one. JKR's shadow side. - Dumbledore - Puppetmaster!JKR. Moving characters around in order to fulfill their mission & getting frustrated that they keep following their own motivations instead. Putting everyone in place for the grand plan, that falls apart in the end. Visionary, creative, cold. - Hermione - JKR's self-insert, of who she actually was as a teenager. Intelligent, swottish, insecure, loyal to her friends. - Ginny - JKR's idealized vision of who she *wishes* she was as a teenager. The shy quiet girl who suddenly becomes beautiful, witty, strong, popular, totally self-confident & kick-ass. - Luna Lovegood - a dreamer who lives up inside her own head, making up impossible stories about magical creatures & not paying attention in chemistry class. - Umbridge - Yep, sorry. Umbridge feels justified in inflicting painful punishments because she feels the student deserved it for not supporting the Ministry. JKR feels justified in inflicting painful punishments on Marietta & Zacharias, because she feels the characters deserve it for not supporting Harry. - Merope - represents the fear of being a "bad mother" or an incapable mother. Merope is the only single mother in the series, & she arrived in London in much the same state that JKR arrived in Edinburgh. Both were part of a whirlwind marriage that ended within a year, & both arrived in Britain totally broke, unemployed, poor and desperate. In addition, Merope's story seems connected to the fear of childbirth, as JKR was herself pregnant when HBP was written. IMO, that's the only way to make sense of DD's comment that Merope died in childbirth because she was weak & cowardly, & didn't love her child enough. - Lily Potter/Molly Weasley - the "good mother" or idealized mother, who totally devotes herself to her children. - Tonks/Bellatrix Lestrange - "obsessive love" yet again. Both women are motivated almost entirely by their love for a person who does not love them back. I'm sorry, there's *someone* JKR can't get over. The figure of obsessive love is defeated in the end by the figure of good maternal love. - Voldemort - represents her fear of death; named "flight from death", who can't accept the idea of mortality & doesn't believe in an afterlife. Creates "Death Eaters", who will prevent death from occurring. LV is basically obsessed with avoiding death. "Flight from death" is defeated in the end by "master of death", who does accept his own mortality. - Quirrel - fear of domination & control by another. Gullible young person who leaves Britain to "see the world" & is instead seduced by a malevolent figure. Extremely anxious, nervous, afraid. Representation of one who has lost their own self & is instead dominated by a threatening, controlling figure. A metaphor for domestic abuse. - Gryffindor - Idealized self - Bravery, nobility, strength, power, true love, good mothers & happy families. Raised to the top tower, shown to the world. - Slytherin - Shadow self - Ambition, cunning, bad mothers & obsessive love compartmentalized to a deep dark dungeon and hidden under the lake. Slytherin as the subconscious & shadow side. I think almost every character is some aspect of the author herself. This is arguably true of all literature, but "Harry Potter" more than most. The series is ultimately very dream-like, like we're wandering through JKR's psyche. IMO, that's what gives the narrative so much power & resonance, and that's also what makes it feel so dangerous in some ways. IMO, HP could be seen as a Gothic novel. Typically the Gothic novel will feature some huge rambling mansion that is a symbol of the owner's own mind. I think Hogwarts castle is a representation of JKR's own mind, and all the people, places, fears & hopes she finds there. (Disclaimer: All of the above is just IMO!) lizzyben From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 28 20:12:44 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:12:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Money In-Reply-To: <4724549E.6070404@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > Or, rather more seriously, how _do_ werewolves who live within wizarding > society deal with money? Either they simply don't handle sickles (and > would have to explain this at every transaction); they wear gloves, use > tissue paper to isolate the coins from their hands, etc; or the coins > are in fact made of some base metal, rather than the silver (and, for > Galleons, presumably not gold either) that we've always thought they are. Marianne: I don't think JKR subscribes to the theory of silver being painful to werewolves. Or, if she does, she shouldn't have had Remus using one of the Black family's silver goblets in OoP without showing it hurting him in some way. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 28 21:44:08 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:44:08 -0000 Subject: RL-HP breaking up with NT-GW In-Reply-To: <010201c818cf$19c00290$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178570 "k12listmomma" wrote in : << Catlady wrote: << there's no more reason why LV would want to kidnap and torture Remus's girl than any other Phoenix. >> I strongly disagree with that last line, because canon contradicts it. Reread that first chapter. Lord Voldemort talked about pruning family trees, did he not? Thus, he did indeed target Tonks and Lupin specifically, because Tonks was related to the Malfoys and to Bellatrix. Tonks says it again in that scene where the Death Eaters went after all the fake Harrys- Bellatrix went for her specifically to kill her. >> I accept your correction. You are right that Tonks *was* specifically targeted. I was thinking 'Remus's girl' when I should have been thinking 'Bellatrix's niece'. In my mind, she was in more danger from BELLATRIX than her colleagues were, rather than more danger from VOLDEMORT, because Voldemort delegated that task to Bellatrix. In my mind, Voldemort didn't really care about the Black family tree or werewolves, he just gave Bellatrix an assignment that would keep her busy AND AWAY FROM HIM for a while. << It is reasonable to assume that Snape might have spilled to this couple that they were in immediate danger from LV to be murdered, but if they didn't know if before Bella went after Tonks, certainly they knew it then. >> But part of my point remains. Harry somehow thought that if he broke up with Ginny, Voldemort wouldn't find out that Harry cared about Ginny, so that Ginny wouldn't be a target because of Harry. But once Tonks was pregnant with Lupin's child, there's no way that Lupin breaking up with her would protect her from Bellatrix/Voldemort. Her half-werewolf child would still be related to Bellatrix even if the werewolf were dead and even if the marriage were annulled. Lupin deserting her wouldn't remove the reasons (she married a werewolf, she's going to bear a half-werewolf child) that make her Bellatrix's target. Whether Lupin sincerely thought he would do the world more good by joining the Horcrux (or was it Hallows?) hunt than by living with his wife, or he craved active adventure (unlikely! in my view), or he had an exaggerated case of the normal fear of being unable to live up to the responsibility of parenthood, or he was just TIRED of hanging around with Tonks and her boring or annoying conversation, he couldn't have reasonably thought that Bellatrix would stop hunting Tonks just because Lupin was elsewhere. From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 07:41:18 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:41:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: <47158df8.15b38c0a.4c24.6dcb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178571 > Sherry: > But well, I really disagree on this one. > > Harry has just suffered an extremely dangerous and traumatic event. He is > not rational at this time, or he'd be beyond human. He has been chased by > deatheaters, and then Voldemort himself, nearly been killed, seen Hedwig > die, thought Hagrid had died, is barely a month away from the murder of > Dumbledore ... how on earth could he be expected to realize instantly that > the woman was not Bellatrix? I totally understood his reaction, with all > he'd been through. And Bellatrix is the one who murdered Sirius. I thought > his reaction made perfect sense. I tend to agree for all the reasons you cite, Sherry. Danger is expected (and found) at every turn for quite some time. Also, with regard to Mike's point, Harry might have been expected to know the connections and be less surprised at Andromeda Tonks. However, for the reader, the surprise reaction of hostility helped remind *us* of those connections. For readers a little fuzzy on who is whom at this point, this sort of forces consideration of who she is and how the characters are related. I thought Harry's reaction added some true depth. With the family relations we've lerned about mainly since OotP, family ties versus loyalties to either side in the LV issue are complicated. Harry's faux pas underlines the difficulty of easily sorting anyone into the good guys or bad guys group. Harry's surprise at Andromeda's resemblence to Bellatrix shows the realistic "knee jerk" reactions we sometimes have, and unfortunately how we do not always get the chance to make proper apologies and reconciliation. afn From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 19:32:30 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:32:30 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH5, Fallen Warrior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178572 Mike wrote: "Of course, Ron is mobbed by Hermione. When it's determined that they're both okay, and Ron is praised for some nifty spellcraft,..." Steph: I'm not going to comment on the rest of the questions because many people have already done so. However, I thought it odd that no one (especially Molly and Arthur) seem to notice that Ron and Hermione are behaving very couple-like. Perhaps it's just the tension of the moment, but it's never brought up later, either, except by Viktor Krum. You'd think that something as momentous as Ron and Hermione hooking up would be talked about amongst the family. I would have expected the twins, at least, to tease Ron about it, but no one says anything about it. From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 20:44:43 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:44:43 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178573 DH moments: Ron: favorite moment for me has to be when he offered himself to Bellatrix in place of Hermione, then when he's yelling for Hermione when he and Harry are imprisoned in the Malfoys' cellar. It was a toss-up between that and when he saved Harry and destroyed the locket Horcrux. Hermione: when she masterminds their escape from Xeno Lovegood's house. I'll have to get back to you on moments from the other books. Steph From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Oct 28 22:00:32 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:00:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47250680.2090303@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178574 marion11111 wrote: >>> I can't think of any characters who are described as skinny other >> than Harry in the first >>> book. I don't mean normal weight characters, but people described in >> a stereotypical way >>> such as "bony." >> Potioncat: >> hem hem, >> As I said before....Petunia. > > marion11111: > Ah, that's true. I'd forgotten her. And for some reason I think of Filch as skinny, but that > might just be thanks to the movies. I suppose the negative trait they both share is > "fussiness." Bart: Look, we can take example after example out of context to show that there are some positive characters who happen to be heavy. But, when it comes down to it, the trait of being overweight is frequently bundled with negative personality traits, and, while there are a couple of positive characters who happen to be overweight, their heaviness is depicted as an incidental trait, not one associated with negative characteristics. JKR probably says, "Some of my best friends are fat." Bart From afn01288 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 06:24:21 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:24:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's quest for immortality a possible clue to homosexuality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178575 > Curlyhornedsnorkack writes: > > I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, but I wonder if a clue > to Dumbledore's homosexuality could have been his quest for > immortality. Having once faced the prospect of never having children, > as many gay people still do, I did think of ways in which I could > pass what I lived on into the future. If I had had access to magic > that could have made me immortal, I would have been interested. afn replies: Not only far-fetched but off target. DD lives on and achieves "immortality" through his students. In HBP, we see his remorse over his tutelage of Tom Riddle and future effects. Similarly, other teachers are childless yet concerned about posterity and legacy through those young people whose lives they encounter like McGonnagal and even Snape. If anything we see criticism of this tendency for immortality in DH in Aberforth's response to Harry about pursuing his brother Albus's plans for him. We wonder near the end of DH whether DD's *real* quest for immortality is evidenced in unduly placing expectations upon his charges who will carry on as with both Snape and Harry. From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Oct 28 22:36:59 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:36:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178576 Magpie: > No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. Whether or not > he's perceptive of Harry needing rest doesn't make him much > different from any other House Elf. (Maybe Kreacher needed a rest-- > he was in the battle too.) Any House Elf would get Harry a sandwich > no questions asked. Harry calls on this elf because he's his > personal slave. Dana: I never thought of House-Elves in regards to slavery and thus I never perceived Harry wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as Harry embracing the role of a proud slave owner. I think it was supposed to be an indication that Harry now considered Kreacher as part of his family. Sure that might seem weird considering he would request something of Kreacher to do for him that he could easily have done himself but asking any other House-Elf WOULD have been offending to Kreacher and because it is perceived as an honor for house-elves to serve their master, doing it himself would have been equally offending now that Kreacher accepted Harry as his master. Which is not the same thing as you suggest because if Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to serve Harry and thus still not acknowledge him as his master, then Harry could order Kreacher to make him a sandwich but be better off not eating it, because it would probably contain something that wouldn't be agreeable for a human being to eat. Just like Kreacher followed orders to spy on Draco but essentially gave Harry nothing useful in regards to what Harry wanted to know. Of course one could argue about the fact if this was specifically well written to support such an interpretation but I think if you look at everything that is written about house-elves then it is less hard to see it like that(IMO). The house-elves at Hogwarts are appalled not only at Winky for being disowned by her family but also about Dobby's embracement of freedom. It is not the house-elves way of living. When the trio visited the kitchen for the first time all house-elves practically fell over one another to serve the kids to whatever they wanted. Dobby is appalled for Kreacher's disrespect for Harry to such a point that he physically punishes Kreacher for it. Winky is totally lost for losing her family, so much so that she doesn't seem able to recover from it. As have been pointed out by others, Hermione's attempt to trick the elves into freedom is not appreciated by the elves themselves and they refuse to give their services to the Gryffindor tower because of it. Even though the house-elf can never disobey a direct order from his master, the amount of devotion a house-elf has to said master, IS entirely dependent on the amount of respect a house-elf has for said master. And thus if the master treats the house-elf not with the respectfulness the house-elf requires to respect his master, he will not be totally devoted to said master, which can lead to various forms of disobedience and disloyalty ect. The house-elf essentially will make up his own mind about how he will interpret and execute his masters orders. If he likes you he will do his best to please you if not well... The issues surrounding SPEW where, in my opinion, never really about elf rights or the condemnation of slavery but all about Hermione's ill attempts to impose her own ideas on what house-elf rights should be with total disregard to the needs of the elves themselves. It didn't matter to her that most house-elves would just feel as miserable as Winky if they were set free by their master because she was of the opinion that they just wouldn't know themselves what would be good for them or not. That is human nature, we think people can only be happy if they think, act and behave just like we do. Or to think all human beings would have the necessity to live under the same conditions or circumstances as our own. A good example is for instance the idea that wearing a garment that conceals the head by woman from Muslim countries is always a sign of oppression while that is not by definition the case. Many conceal their head out of respect to their faith and do so by their own choice. And even if it is imposed by strong religious communities, forcing these women to take it off, will not provide them more liberty that you would envision them to have. It will not provide them with a happier life because now they would be facing public rejection. Change should come from within and can't be imposed from an outside source that actually doesn't understand the complexities of this way of living. If there is a need for change than this will eventually come to be if enough people see the virtues of the necessity of change if not then things will never change. It is that simple. Not just within religious communities but essentially for everything that involves cultural or political organised forms of living. Hermione simply didn't understand anything about the house-elf way of living when she formed SPEW and just wanted to impose a change because it made her feel better about doing something she had a strong opinion about, regardless if the opinion of the ones she was trying to help was actually the same as hers. So in other words if you want to help others, do it on their terms and not on your own because you are actually not helping anybody if you don't address the actual need of those you are trying to help. If you try to give a stray cat lettuce to eat, because you are a vegetarian, then you are actually not saving the cat from starvation. The cat needs meat regardless of your personal opinion on the consumption of meat. JKR's point was never about slavery but about understanding that different people or different groups of people have different needs and you can't just assume that all they ever need is precisely the same as your own needs in life or even that all of them should accept change because one person from such a background chooses to life differently. Both Winky and Dobby were free and still they did not perceive their freedom in the same way. Even though Dobby embraced his freedom doesn't make it by definition something that all house- elves should now require, besides Dobby still served others by his own choice because to him it was still his purpose in life. So the incorporation of his freedom worked for him but it didn't work for Winky. To keep dumping the slavery issue on the house-elf element is in my opinion missing the point of what it was metaphorically supposed to mean. Hermione was WRONG with her SPEW thing even if it was with the best of intentions. For a house-elf to be happy he must be allowed to do what he has been doing for centuries -> serve wizarding kind and the only thing that can be changed is how wizards treat house-elves. To change the bad conditions of the house-elf you do not need to change the house-elf but the behavior of wizards in regards to house-elf. To actually take away their service to wizards would take away their life purpose, no matter how much you oppose to the idea of their servitude (which was precisely what Hermione oppossed to) JMHO Dana, who absolutely would have liked to have seen Hermione actually coming to this conclusion on page instead of her suddenly knowing everything there is to know about how the house-elf mind works but apparently we have to imagine this ourselves like many of the other things not actually written in the books. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 22:44:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:44:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178577 Magpie wrote: > No, he's just Harry's slave and does what he says. Whether or not he's perceptive of Harry needing rest doesn't make him much different from any other House Elf. (Maybe Kreacher needed a rest--he was in the battle too.) Any House Elf would get Harry a sandwich no > questions asked. Harry calls on this elf because he's his personal > slave. Carol responds: We know that Kreacher found ways of getting around doing what Sirius ordered him to do--same for Harry until he learned to respect him. He may know what Harry has been through--"dying," or a near-death experience or whatever you want to call it, for one, fighting in a battle, losing friends. Even the House-Elves must have known about the Gringotts robbery and the escape on the dragon only hours before HRH arrived in Hogsmeade. Surely Harry deserves a sandwich and Kreacher would be honored to bring him one at this point? And, knowing Kreacher, I think he'd be offended if Harry didn't call for him personally. Harry, the hero of the WW, is "his" master. Hermione educates Harry on the House-Elf mentality. It isn't slavery they resent. It's their nature to serve. It's having to serve a master they don't respect. And Kreacher now respects Harry--perhaps almost as much as he respects his beloved Regulus. IMO, Kreacher would be happy, more than happy, to get Harry a sandwich. He'd feel almost as if he were back home at the Black family home before Yaxley found out how to get in. Carol, wondering whether Harry (and Kreacher) will return to 12 GP now that the DEs are dead or imprisoned From stephab67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 23:35:47 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:35:47 -0000 Subject: Laughing All the Way to the Bank -- JKR Shout-Outs In-Reply-To: <699255.54608.qm@web55012.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178578 > Potioncat: > > >There are other places where JKR seems to be teasing the actors a bit. > Steph: I'm coming to this discussion very late, but had to jump in! During the Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview, JKR came right out and said that she was thinking about Rupert and laughing while she wrote the Ron/Lavender scenes. That also leads me to believe that she also gave an intentional shout-out to him when she had Slughorn refer to Ron as "Rupert." From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 00:20:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:20:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178579 > > Magpie: > > > If you're suggesting that Harry called on Kreacher due to yet another > > convoluted way of saying exactly the opposite of what seems to be > > being said--that Harry is here asking Kreacher for a sandwich because > > he hopes that if Kreacher objects to making him a sandwich at that > > moment he will say so and so Harry will not really be acting like a > > slavemaster, I don't buy it. > > Pippin: > No, I'm suggesting that Harry knows that Kreacher will be as hurt > and miserable as Winky if Harry were to insist on making his own > sandwiches, and that if making a sandwich at that moment would > create difficulties for Kreacher, Kreacher would let him know and > Harry would care about it. If Kreacher were a wage slave, > how would it be different? Magpie: I don't know what wage slaves have to do with anything here. It's not like Harry has to be either one, or you have to choose one or the other. Regardless, Harry is thinking of himself in that last line. He's just thinking of having Kreacher make him a sandwich and that brings in all the baggage that comes from having a slave race and making your hero an owner of one. Harry's thoughts are about what he wants in that last sentence. Pippin: > > As for whether Harry *would* care... > > If the dementors blew a different personality into Dudley, then > Snape blew a different personality into Harry. Harry, on the floor > in Dumbledore's office, had a spiritual death and re-awakening. > He had hit bottom, nothing he could learn in the pensieve was as bad > as the reality he was facing (canon paraphrase.) And what he learned > in the pensieve was where seeking glory and vengeance, as Snape > did, would lead him. > > We don't see him soul-searching just as we > don't see Dudley doing it, because while Harry has grown up, > the narrator still has the outlook of a bright, interested preteen. > As Bettelheim says, the child does not grow sad and then cry, > he just cries. He does not get angry and hit, he just hits. Harry, > from a child's perspective, would not feel remorse and change his > ways, he would just change. And that's what we see, IMO. Magpie: I don't see "Maybe I'll have Kreacher fix me a sandwich" as a sign of his great spiritual awakening or mature growth. I think he just wants a sandwich and by now asking his slave to make him one is the thing that comes into his head. He's never been particularly interested in abusing House Elves. He would have preferred it if Kreacher had been eager to serve him before, too, I'd guess, but if he needed something done he just had to tell him to do it. I think he'd do the same thing now. He's already settled into a smooth master/servant relationship back in Grimmauld Place long before he "died." Asking his now loyal House Elf to do something isn't like asking Ron to do something, where there'd be some discussion about whether Ron felt like making him a sandwich and why Harry wasn't making it for himself to begin with. Ron's an equal who might be willing to make Harry a sandwich as a favor or if Harry gave him something in return, but Harry probably wouldn't ask him. If Kreacher said stuff like, "Kreacher is a little worn out right now, maybe Master could skip his sandwich?" he wouldn't be a House Elf. Pippin: > As for the implication that by not abolishing slavery, JKR is somehow > saying that it's good... > > I seem to remember from history class that back when slavery > was a live issue in America, there were abolitionists who were in > favor of gradually abolishing slavery, and radical > abolitionists who wanted slavery ended at once. While the moral > purity of the latter position can't be doubted, there was > very little those people could do for actual slaves, because they > (the radicals) were regarded as cranks and few people would listen > to them. > > Although we remember the Civil War now as having > been fought to free the slaves, that was not the perception of > people at the time, and they probably wouldn't have gone to war > over it. JKR's world reflects that reality, not history as we would > like it to have been, IMO. Magpie: I didn't say that JKR said that slavery "was good" meaning that she supports slavery in our world, I said she presented it as a perfectly acceptable (to Harry) part of the WW. I don't think she's saying anything much at all about slavery to anybody--except maybe that it can be really cool to have a sentient being who lives to serve you and would be upset by your not ordering them around so you get to be a slaveowner and be considered to be treating others well. I don't think she's teaching anybody any lessons about the history of how slavery was abolished in the US or anything about history at all with them (and slavery was an important issue at the time of the Civil War and stated as a reason for going for war). In fact, I think one could argue that creating a slave race who is happier as slaves is writing history the way many people would want it to have been--people who wanted slavery to be considered the natural state of the enslaved race. Nobody's abolishing slavery one way or the other in the WW. In short, I think she just came up with the House Elves as a wholly fictional creation--one that happens to have a lot in common with romantic notions of real world slavery, but is not supposed to be an argument for it. But now that it's done I don't think Harry Potter the slave owner has anything to teach the non-slave owners reading the books about anything on the subject. He's the one who's taken the big step back here in having a slave, and I don't see the House Elves as saying much of anything about the history of slavery in the real world. Lizzyben: People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave owner. Magpie: That's the way I read the last line too. Everything in its proper place and Harry has his real life back. He can sleep in his own bed at Hogwarts with his friends and have his loyal Elf make him a sandwich. It's Voldemort who wanted social reform (albeit for the worse), not Harry. If Harry met another Dobby who wanted to be free he'd happily free him, just as Dumbledore offered the House Elves at Hogwarts freedom and they rejected it. As a Wizard it's Harry's noble duty to show noblesse oblige. Harry has just returned to the life he was living in Grimmauld Place where Kreacher cooked and cleaned and fawned over everyone and they accepted it as their due and the way things were supposed to be. Harry's doing Kreacher a favor by asking him to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Whether or not she supports slavery in our world--which I highly doubt she does--she's defended and justified it in her fictional world. > > Dana: > I never thought of House-Elves in regards to slavery and thus I never > perceived Harry wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as > Harry embracing the role of a proud slave owner. > I think it was supposed to be an indication that Harry now considered > Kreacher as part of his family. Magpie: The same way he was a part of the Black family--he's the family servant. He's not a Black. Kreacher waits on Harry. He doesn't have an equal relationship. He cooks and cleans for him. Dana: Which is not the same thing as > you suggest because if Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to serve Harry > and thus still not acknowledge him as his master, then Harry could > order Kreacher to make him a sandwich but be better off not eating > it, because it would probably contain something that wouldn't be > agreeable for a human being to eat. Just like Kreacher followed > orders to spy on Draco but essentially gave Harry nothing useful in > regards to what Harry wanted to know. Magpie: The fact that Kreacher is a better slave when Harry's done something to make Kreacher consider him his rightful master does not make Kreacher no longer a slave. Kreacher had to acknowledge Harry as Master in HBP. Now he likes him being his master. He's still his master. Once Kreacher has accepted Harry as his *rightful* master, all his thoughts become about what's best for Harry. Kreacher no longer has wants of his own. He might sometimes disagree with Harry on what's best for Harry. That's what makes the whole idea such a fantasy--and I would think a bit of a threat to one's character myself. Dana: > Of course one could argue about the fact if this was specifically > well written to support such an interpretation but I think if you > look at everything that is written about house-elves then it is less > hard to see it like that(IMO). > The house-elves at Hogwarts are appalled not only at Winky for being > disowned by her family but also about Dobby's embracement of freedom. > It is not the house-elves way of living. > When the trio visited the kitchen for the first time all house- elves > practically fell over one another to serve the kids to whatever they > wanted. Magpie: We're not disagreeing over whether House Elves like to serve. I know they like to serve and that it's in their nature. I know how they show they're displeasure within their abilities when they don't really want to do something. They're born to be slaves. Harry has accepted being master to one of these born slaves. The willing slave who serves out of love is a tempting idea, isn't it? That's what Harry's got now and he knows it. (And I think it's a bit of a stretch to now claim, just because Harry's thinking about having Kreacher make him a sandwich, that it's also in a House Elf's nature to be hurt any time his master lifts a finger for himself--that doesn't always seem to be the case.) Dana: > The issues surrounding SPEW where, in my opinion, never really about > elf rights or the condemnation of slavery but all about Hermione's > ill attempts to impose her own ideas on what house-elf rights should > be with total disregard to the needs of the elves themselves. Magpie: Yes, because the story here isn't about the abolition of slavery for House Elves. Slavery's fine in this universe when it involves House Elves. As Harry and Hermione both seem fine with in DH. Dana: > JKR's point was never about slavery but about understanding that > different people or different groups of people have different needs > and you can't just assume that all they ever need is precisely the > same as your own needs in life or even that all of them should accept > change because one person from such a background chooses to life > differently. Magpie: Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to things that were claimed about real people (that they were better off being slaves and happier that way). It's understandable that people can find Harry's casual acceptance of his position distasteful even while understanding that House Elves really aren't like people and some how are made to be slaves. You don't have to not get House Elves' nature in order to not like Harry's position in the end. It's hardly "dumping" a slavery issue into it when we're introduced to House Elves via Dobby who actually acts like a human and not an animal because he wants freedom. Then we get Hermione also talking about elves like they're being oppressed by slavery--and JKR I think even said she thought Hermione was right. Later both Harry and Hermione are fine with being waited on by Harry's slave, but can't you see why people would find this version of "respect other peoples' needs" to be a bit distasteful and suspicious given the only way to apply it in the RW? It's one thing for me to respect the right of a Muslim woman to dress herself in a way she thinks shows respect for God, or give anyone the right to stay in an abusive situation. It's quite another for me to believe another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it confusing. Dana: For a house-elf to be happy he must be allowed to do > what he has been doing for centuries -> serve wizarding kind and the > only thing that can be changed is how wizards treat house-elves. To > change the bad conditions of the house-elf you do not need to change > the house-elf but the behavior of wizards in regards to house-elf. Magpie: That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by House Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave owner." Carol: Hermione educates Harry on the House-Elf mentality. It isn't slavery they resent. It's their nature to serve. It's having to serve a master they don't respect. And Kreacher now respects Harry--perhaps almost as much as he respects his beloved Regulus. Magpie: Yes, I know. Kreacher is a sentient being who actually does have the nature to serve. So Harry's just taking his responsible place by being a great master and allowing Kreacher to serve him. He's Harry's slave, happy or not. There's no point in talking around it and pretending that that isn't the whole structure of the relationship or making Kreacher "love" Harry enough (this being the House Elf version of love as well, which reflects their foreign nature as well) that he's no longer a slave. The point really isn't that Kreacher will be unhappy at Harry asking him to make him a sandwich, it's people saying they don't like this kind of situation no matter how justified it is in this universe. They don't want their hero having a slave and don't much admire him when he's thinking about what food he wants his slave to bring him in bed. They might not see any reason for him to have a servant at all. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 00:39:10 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:39:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178580 > va32h: > "thinking now only of the four-poster bed lying waiting for him in > Gryffindor Tower, and wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a > sandwich there." (pg 749). > > What part of that phrase suggests that Harry's original plan was to > nip down to the kitchen and fix his own sandwich? Harry is thinking > *only* of going to bed according to the text. Then it occurs to him > that Kreacher could bring him a sandwich. zgirnius: Thank you for posting the canon. After reading this thread, I was beginning to think I misremembered the ending, and Harry had actually ordered a sandwich from Kreacher! Now that I see the canon - where does it say Harry planned to ask for a sandwich at all? The only action Harry expresses any thought of taking is going upstairs to bed. He expresses also a vague hope that Kreacher might bring him a sandwich, but no intention of actually making it so. Is this an unreasonable hope for Harry to harbor? I would say not. The House Elves, having participated in the battle under Kreacher's leadership, are definitely back to work in the Hogwarts kitchens. We can deduce this because when Harry leaves to seek out Albus' portrait, others are sitting at the tables in the Great Hall, eating. Food in one of the five exceptions to Gamp's Law, etc., so someone made than food the old-fashioned way and caused it to arrive. Absent any statement in the text as to who, I would think the natural conclusion is, the people who always make the food and cause it to arrive - the House Elves. So for the sandwich to come, all it would take is for Kreacher to notice his master is absent from the meal, and take steps to get the food to him. This seems entirely in character for Kreacher. And if he doesn't notice - Harry can always nip down to the kitchen for a snack after he wakes. > va32h > > How does one transport a thread from one list to another? Because > yes, I would argue with some of the things you suggested regarding the > Civil War. zgirnius: Simply copy any points from the post you wish to address, format the post as usual, and then post it at the OTC list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ You could also use the 'send email' feature to let the person to whom you are responding know you are doing this, in case they do not regularly peruse that list. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 00:39:05 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:39:05 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47252BA9.6020609@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178581 > Alla: > Huh? She was asked question about Dumbledore's love life, no? And > then you would have her turn on audience and tell them decide for > yourself? Absolutely. It certainly would have been more respectful of her audience. "Hey, I don't know. You're bright people -- decide for yourselves. Take the story and run with it. I trust you." HP, the WW, DD -- they're all part of a fictional creation which doesn't exist outside the pages of the books. Someone recently posted here a portion of a quote from Douglas Adams which JKR really does need to read, involving him refusing to answer a reader's question about Arthur Dent's computer. A fuller rendition can be found at http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/10/dumbledore_is_gay.html "The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number for you. It doesn't exist. ... It's not that I chose not to reveal it - it actually, really and truly doesn't exist. ... 'What kind of Apple Mac did Arthur Dent have?' is a completely unanswerable question. ... It can't be done. He doesn't exist." Exactly the same can and should be said for DD's sexual orientation or Neville's future abode, or Ron's choice of employment. There IS no DD (or Neville or Ron) outside the canon and, thus, the musings of JKR on any of the above subjects the subject have no greater validity than any of her readers'. She is perfectly free to imagine a homosexual DD, but I'm just as free to not. > I think the answer if one considers interviews to be noncanonical at > all is simply ignore them. If only that were possible. A fanfic author (sorry, don't recall who) recently posted in this list that JKR's statement invalidated her own writings involving DD descendants. The correct answer is that of course it doesn't, as there is no homosexual DD in canon, but anyone attempting heterosexual musings about DD in the future will have a tough row to hoe despite the fact that it would be perfectly consistent with canon to do so. > Do I still want to know more about Prank? There IS nothing further to know about Prank (or Tonks, or Neville, or any other character), because they have no existence outside what we've already read. If you want to "know" more about Prank, then YOU make the call. > What happens to the characters in the future - I want to know. People that don't exist have no future -- hence, nothing happens to them. --CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 00:58:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:58:14 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up?/ Harry's remark to Kreacher In-Reply-To: <47252BA9.6020609@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178582 Alla: > > Do I still want to know more about Prank? > CJ: > There IS nothing further to know about Prank (or Tonks, or Neville, or > any other character), because they have no existence outside what we've > already read. If you want to "know" more about Prank, then YOU make the > call. Alla: Sorry, should have specified. I want to know what JKR knows of the Prank that she did not include in the books. I am dying to know if she has any other backstory that she did not include. I am free to imagine whatever I like, but I certainly want to know as Catlady said ( I think) whether whatever is in JKR's head is just as fascinating as whatever made it to the pages of canon. Alla: > > What happens to the characters in the future - I want to know. CJ: > People that don't exist have no future -- hence, nothing happens to them. Alla: People that do not exist, huh? I think I knew that part already. I will wait for more from JKR, I think. Lizzyben: People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave owner. Magpie: That's the way I read the last line too. Everything in its proper place and Harry has his real life back. He can sleep in his own bed at Hogwarts with his friends and have his loyal Elf make him a sandwich. It's Voldemort who wanted social reform (albeit for the worse), not Harry. If Harry met another Dobby who wanted to be free he'd happily free him, just as Dumbledore offered the House Elves at Hogwarts freedom and they rejected it. As a Wizard it's Harry's noble duty to show noblesse oblige. Harry has just returned to the life he was living in Grimmauld Place where Kreacher cooked and cleaned and fawned over everyone and they accepted it as their due and the way things were supposed to be. Harry's doing Kreacher a favor by asking him to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Whether or not she supports slavery in our world--which I highly doubt she does--she's defended and justified it in her fictional world. Alla: But what proper place? Who decides that everything in proper place? Nothing changes at the end of War and peace with serfes situation, absolutely nothing. That is while during the book prince Andrey and Pierre both take succesful or less succesful steps to ease their serves situation - NOT free them at first, but care for them, educate, make their duties easier ( and I think Andrey frees some of them, but not all). Description of Pierre's situation stroke me exactly as Hermione attempts to help house elves. Poor guy had no clue. People were taking advantage of him ( people in charge of serves), nothing was working, he had no clue. Nothing changes in Russian society as a whole though. Why? Because serves were NOT freed yet, it only happened in the last decade of the century. Everybody still has slaves when the book ends. Same here, no? Of course I do not see Harry asking Kreacher for sandwich as sign of his spiritual awakening, but I do not see that if Kreacher ever wants freedom, Harry will refuse him now OR if Hermione makes reforms, Harry will be against them. This particular change just did not happen yet IMO. Only one particular evil was estinguished at the end - Lord Voldemort. I do not share POV that since elves like to serve, that is how it should be and that it is not distasteful. Of course it is distasteful to have sentinent beings to serve you, I totally agree with you. Where we differ I think is in inttepreting JKR's intentions. I think she wanted to show that century long brainwashing does not go away so fast. NOT that this is the proper place. IMO of course. From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Oct 29 01:02:06 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:02:06 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: <47252BA9.6020609@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: Someone recently posted here a > portion of a quote from Douglas Adams which JKR really does need to > read, involving him refusing to answer a reader's question about > Arthur Dent's computer. A fuller rendition can be found at > http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/10/dumbledore_is_gay.html > > "The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to > unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real > person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of > words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in > people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, > or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell > you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number > for you. It doesn't exist.... It's not that I chose not to reveal > it - it actually, really and truly doesn't exist. ... 'What kind of > Apple Mac did Arthur Dent have?' is a completely unanswerable > question. ... It can't be done. He doesn't exist." Mus is grateful: Thank you for (re)posting that. It stands in some contrast to the words of JKR last week in Toronto, reported in #178482: ' "He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him," she said.' No, Ms Rowling - you had seven books to say what you wanted to say. You can *think* whatever you like, and you can share what you think, , but you simply can't attempt to manage your story when it's already been published by telling us "he is what he is". He's not your character any more. There's actually nothing to stop her from telling us that Voldemort was really innocent, the patsy for an even nastier Evil Overlord who is an undetectable presence in the book, but really at the root of all the shenanigans. Nothing, that is, apart from the recognition of the relationship between the author, the reader and the text. She does recognise that, doesn't she? Mus, who has hir doubts. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 01:03:28 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:03:28 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178584 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > I would like to propose a little game ( canon based one, mind > you :)). > > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and > least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. Now, just to show you how fair I am being with my restrictions, > SNAPE is not the only character I am going to exclude from this game. > > I am excluding two of my absolutely very favorite characters - HARRY Niru writes: What? I can't write about HARRY? Oh well... Hermione it is then. Favoutite moments: 1. In PS, when she says, "This isn't magic. It is logic." Go Hermione! 2. Punching Draco Malfoy in PoA. (The git had it coming for years) 3. Waiting for Harry outside the portrait hole in GoF the day after his name comes out of the goblet and giving him her full support. 4. Accioing the horcrux books from Dumbledore's study. (Haha... who would have thought her capable of such a thing?) 5. Engineering their escape from Xeno Lovegood's place. Least favourite: 1. Leaving clothes for house elves in a most sneaky manner. 2. Her insistence that the Hallows didn't exist despite mounting evidence. cheers, Niru From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 29 01:19:58 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:19:58 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > > the words of JKR last week in Toronto, reported in #178482: > > ' "He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say > what I say about him," she said.' Someone else already said this, but: WHY should Rowling be the only person in the world who doesn't have the right to say things about Potterverse characters? > There's actually nothing to stop her from telling us that Voldemort > was really innocent, the patsy for an even nastier Evil Overlord who > is an undetectable presence in the book, but really at the root of > all the shenanigans. IIRC some authors have used their equivalent as the plot for a sequel. (Does your << the relationship between the author, the reader and the text >> allow sequels?) I don't think anyone could make Voldemort INNOCENT after we saw inside his head that he never feels as good as when he's murdering people. But it could be presented that he never thought he could get away with murdering people until someone talked him into it, or that he never would have been more than just another serial murderer unless someone had talked him into wanting to rule all wizards. It could be presented that Dumbledore was the person who talked him into it ... I hope that would upset more people than his sexual orientation. From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 01:46:33 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:46:33 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178586 Mus is grateful: Thank you for (re)posting that. It stands in some contrast to the words of JKR last week in Toronto, reported in #178482: ' "He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him," she said.' No, Ms Rowling - you had seven books to say what you wanted to say. You can *think* whatever you like, and you can share what you think, , but you simply can't attempt to manage your story when it's already been published by telling us "he is what he is". He's not your character any more. Tiffany: Even though the books are registered to her & all 7 noveels are finished, it's all in the hands of the fandom now to do as they please. The Potterverse will live on as long as people read the books & discuss what's in them. You had 7 books, all great, to tell us the canonical story & unfold things as you saw fit, but it's now in the hands of the fans to decide what they think will occur after DH. It may be speculating that's heavily discussed with no real consensus, but as long there's people discussing the Potterverse, it lives. Mus: Nothing, that is, apart from the recognition of the relationship between the author, the reader and the text. She does recognise that, doesn't she? Mus, who has hir doubts. Tiffany: I've not been too impressed by JKR's interviews as of late & what she's all said, but I've listened to it all & read it all. However, I also have some doubts about if JKR knows the relationship between author, reader, & text, but can't speculate thoroughly enough to say for sure on it. From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Oct 29 01:50:45 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:50:45 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Someone else already said this, but: > WHY should Rowling be the only person in the world who doesn't have > the right to say things about Potterverse characters? She shouldn't be. Just as there is a difference between "Dumbledore was gay" (which she didn't say) and "I've always thought of Dumbledore as gay" (which she did), there's a difference between saying what she *thinks* and "He is my character - he is what he is". She's as entitled as any of the rest of us to talk about what she thinks, but that cuts both ways: we are as entitled as her to an opinion now. The game is over and all the cards are face-up on the table. The only way in which Dumbledore "is what he is" is as he exists between the pages of the books. He has no existence outside of them, and if he doesn't, he can't belong to her. When she sent the manuscript of DH off, she gave up sole title. If Dumbledore's being gay or being able to talk Swahili or liking Pulp was part of what was made up of permutations of 26 marks on paper, then it should have been there. She chose not to tell us, and so it doesn't exist. > (Does your << the relationship between the author, the reader and > the text >> allow sequels?) Yes, of course. That's another piece of fiction, another book. > I don't think anyone could make Voldemort INNOCENT after we saw > inside his head that he never feels as good as when he's murdering > people. But the only access we have to Voldemort's mind is through Harry's - what if those communications were planted there by EvenEviller!Overlord, in a typically JKR piece of misdirection? Turtles, in other words, all the way down. My point in that risible scenario was that if she is going to persist in giving us new information like this, then there's nothing to stop her completely undermining what she's already given us in the books. In a way, she's already done this - her interviews have been stuffed with unreliable information (who does magic late in life, etc) all along. I was inclined to excuse this on the basis that she was only telling us what we would eventually find out anyway, and because she was still writing them. But those excuses no longer hold true: it's over. It's finished. And if she feels that she should have put more in, then, frankly, tough. She's given the world seven books - it's time, as Red Hen says, to step away from the mirror. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 01:52:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:52:17 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up?/ Harry's remark to Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178588 > Alla: >> Nothing changes in Russian society as a whole though. Why? Because > serves were NOT freed yet, it only happened in the last decade of > the century. > Alla; GRRRRRRRR. Remember Alla, remember decade means TEN years not fifty or fourty. 1861 is the date. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 02:00:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:00:39 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178589 > Alla: > Tell us about your favorite character and tell us your favorite and > least favorite moment ( or moments) for this character. > > Now there is a little restriction I want to place here. Obviously I > cannot stop anybody from talking about, you guessed it SNAPE, but > since I am starting the game, would be nice if we played by my > rules, MAHAHAHAHAH. zgirnius: Are there really people out there whose favorite character is Snape? *makes innocent doe eyes at Alla* > Alla: > So, YEAH. If your favorite character is Snape, please tell us about > your second favorite character moment or moments. Where you loved > this character's behavior and where you wanted to slap him/her. zgirnius: So the character I shall discuss for...whatever reason...is Hermione! My favorite Hermione moments are: GoF: figuring out Rita's secret and trapping her in the jar. Yes, this was an awful violation of due process and terribly high handed of Hermione, but I thought it was brilliant and reading about it again still beings a smile to my face. So clever of her to figure it out! OotP: Um...everything? OK - talking Harry into the DA, blackmailing Rita into doing the interview, dragging Umbridge out to the Forest. DH: All her planning and cleverness. The bag of tricks, getting out of Xeno Lovegood's probably the highlights for me. Least favorite moment. I put off posting because I could not think of one. Even when she does things I don't necessarily think are great, I still tend to like her for doing them. But I finally remembered something that had bothered me. HBP: Her lack of curiosity about *why* the Prince's recipes worked so well for Harry. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 02:05:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:05:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher/Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178590 > zgirnius: > Thank you for posting the canon. After reading this thread, I was > beginning to think I misremembered the ending, and Harry had actually > ordered a sandwich from Kreacher! > > Now that I see the canon - where does it say Harry planned to ask for > a sandwich at all? The only action Harry expresses any thought of > taking is going upstairs to bed. He expresses also a vague hope that > Kreacher might bring him a sandwich, but no intention of actually > making it so. > > Is this an unreasonable hope for Harry to harbor? I would say not. Magpie: This is getting even more convuluted to me, and it seems like a very straightforward sentence. Now Harry's hoping that Kreacher will notice he's gone and take it into his head to fulfill Harry's desire for a sandwich without Harry asking? Why would he think that? Since when does he go to bed when he wants a sandwich? I think the most obvious interpretation of the sentence, one which is the least complicated and the only one that would ever come to my mind just reading it is that Harry is thinking about getting into bed and considering having Kreacher to bring him a sandwich there. Which he would do by asking him for a sandwich once he's bed. Honestly, Harry hoping Kreacher will just bring him a sandwich without asking gets into Harry being even more weirdly demanding on his property for me. > zgirnius: > So for the sandwich to come, all it would take is for Kreacher to > notice his master is absent from the meal, and take steps to get the > food to him. This seems entirely in character for Kreacher. And if he > doesn't notice - Harry can always nip down to the kitchen for a snack > after he wakes. Magpie: Or all it would take for the sandwich to arrive is for Harry to, in bed, say, "Hey Kreacher? Could you make me a sandwich?" and have Kreacher do it. I don't actually consider it that in character for Kreacher to zap himself into his master's bedroom with sandwiches if he's gone to bed. And then again we're back to Harry nipping down to the kitchen for a snack later when he just said he's thinking about Kreacher bringing him a sandwich in bed. All he says is that he's picturing his bed and Kreacher bringing him a sandwich there. Alla: But what proper place? Who decides that everything in proper place? Magpie: Harry. Not everyone in the WW thinks everything's fine this way, but Harry's fine with things without Voldemort. Harry goes from a Muggle who knows nothing about House-Elves to owning one. Some people don't like having Harry own a slave, that's all. He's not born into a society that exists, JKR made it up for him and ended it with Harry owning a loyal slave. That's the end. I don't think that's the same thing as War & Peace or Gone with the Wind or any story based on history. If people don't like their 20th century hero owning a slave, they just don't like it and there's no explanations regarding historical accuracy that apply. Alla: Of course I do not see Harry asking Kreacher for sandwich as sign of his spiritual awakening, but I do not see that if Kreacher ever wants freedom, Harry will refuse him now OR if Hermione makes reforms, Harry will be against them. Magpie: Sure I think Harry would give Kreacher his freedom if he wanted it. That's what makes this kind of slavery so strange and appealing. The slaves really do want to be slaves. Harry can be a good anti-slavery person while also enjoying a slave who "loves" him and knowing he totally wants slaves to be free, really. The change where this is no longer the way things are in the WW will never happen, because the story's over. He wins all the way around--totally guilt free slavery. Why change it? Alla: Where we differ I think is in inttepreting JKR's intentions. I think she wanted to show that century long brainwashing does not go away so fast. NOT that this is the proper place. IMO of course. Magpie: I don't see how she can be saying that without saying anything like it at all. She has Harry go from somebody who would never in his life consider having a slave to somebody who owns one. Hermione gets over her initial convictions that it's wrong and must be stopped. Freeing House Elves is a non-issue that nobody's working towards and nobody wants, most of all House Elves. As I said, it's essentially guilt- free slavery, because Harry's both the champion of House Elves and the owner of one. Why would the point be that it just takes a long time to go away? (Harry himself is moving in the opposite direction.) That last sentence says very much to me that Kreacher bringing Harry, his master, a sandwich is everything in its proper place, as does the final "all was well" at the end. catlady: Someone else already said this, but: WHY should Rowling be the only person in the world who doesn't have the right to say things about Potterverse... Magpie: She has every right. But she isn't just another person and everyone knows that. That's what the articles I've read have said, and that I agree with. Even if you know that if it's not in canon it's not in the books of course it's harder to think of of anything different when the author said it. If we're all at a tea party talking about the books, JKR isn't just another guest, she carries a lot more weight. It's like we're all people and she's an 800 pound gorilla. When she sits down at the table she breaks the chair. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 02:16:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:16:16 -0000 Subject: House Elves and War and peace WAS: Re: Harry's remark about Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178591 > Alla: > > But what proper place? Who decides that everything in proper place? > > Magpie: > Harry. Not everyone in the WW thinks everything's fine this way, but > Harry's fine with things without Voldemort. Harry goes from a Muggle > who knows nothing about House-Elves to owning one. Some people don't > like having Harry own a slave, that's all. He's not born into a > society that exists, JKR made it up for him and ended it with Harry > owning a loyal slave. That's the end. I don't think that's the same > thing as War & Peace or Gone with the Wind or any story based on > history. If people don't like their 20th century hero owning a slave, > they just don't like it and there's no explanations regarding > historical accuracy that apply. Alla: "If people do not like their 20 century hero owning a slave, they just do not like it." Well, yeah. They just do not like it, this is very true. But sorry, the second part is just not working for me. I just gave you an example of the novel where situation with the slaves was not resolved either AND there was no hint whatsoever that it will be resolved at all. So, to me the comparison actually working very well. Loose comparison obviously, but comparison nevertheless. So, I am not explaining historical accuracy, I am loosely comparing two societies, real and fictional, or more like fictional and fictional where one ugly issue was NOT brought to its logical conclusion as I would love to see it. I am disputing the *proper place* part. I see no indication that it IS elves' proper place, that they cannot achieve more, fight for more, etc. What I am seeing is rather close analogy with history, yes, that situation with serfes in RL russian society was resolving itself for MANY decades, many many decades. That it was happenig slowly/ Whether Harry seems content or not, I do not see it as indicative of "proper place of the elves" ALL main characters of the War and Peace are pretty content on the personal level as well. Never for a minute I doubted that Tolstoy was not content with the situation of serfs and he left me enough hints during the novel to show that he was not either. It is just something that was unresolved in the society yet. IMO same thing for house elves in WW. This fictional society did not resolve that particular problem either. IMO YET. Alla. From stephab67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 00:24:14 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:24:14 -0000 Subject: The Real HP for GrownUps In-Reply-To: <46B12ADC.1060104@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > I thought teenage girls were congenitally discomfited about their > bodies. Would Hermione just shrug off displaying her Victoria's Secret > collection to the world? And given Ron's hormonal hots for Hermione, I > just can't imagine him NOT gawking at her underthingies, even if they > are draped across the wrong body. > As I recall, after Hermione, Ron and Harry apparate out of the wedding reception to Tottenham Court Road, Ron changes out of his formal clothes into jeans and a sweatshirt right in front of Hermione. JKR doesn't have Hermione turning away from him as he does this, and she doesn't have Ron asking Hermione to turn away either. Maybe they're at the point where the situation overrides any shyness either one of them might feel otherwise. steph From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 03:00:34 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:00:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher/Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178593 > Magpie: > This is getting even more convuluted to me, and it seems like a very > straightforward sentence. Now Harry's hoping that Kreacher will > notice he's gone and take it into his head to fulfill Harry's desire > for a sandwich without Harry asking? Why would he think that? Since > when does he go to bed when he wants a sandwich? zgirnius: No, it says his bed *is* waiting for him, and he is *wondering* about a sandwich. A certainty (the bed), and a wondering (the sandwich). This does not seem convoluted at all to me, as it is a straight recounting of what I thought when I read the book. The meaning of the line as far as I see it that Harry is exhausted and starving. In my own experience, when I am in this condition, exhausted wins, hands down, and it seems Harry is the same. I am not willing to exert myself to get food. Likewise, Harry settles for his nice bed upstairs in Gryffindor Tower (the one that we are told is definitely there and lying waiting for him) and then it vaguely occurs to him that it is possible, if he is lucky, that food will find him anyway through the agency of Kreacher (the sandwich that he wonders about whether it might appear). He is going upstairs to sleep, as the passage indicates. If Harry plans to summon Kreacher and order the sandwich, why does Harry *wonder* whether Kreacher *might* do something? He knows quite well that if he orders Kreacher to bring him a freshly baked steak-and- kidney pie, butterbeer, and treacle tart, these items *will* appear. If we were supposed to understand that Hasrry was going to order the sandwich, I would have expected the passage to read thus: "thinking now only of the four-poster bed lying waiting for him in Gryffindor Tower, and of the sandwich he would have Kreacher bring him there" > Magpie: > Honestly, Harry hoping Kreacher will just bring him a sandwich > without asking gets into Harry being even more weirdly demanding on > his property for me. zgirnius: I do not understand how a vague wish is a weird demand. I like it when my boyfriend surprises me with a gift or card or similar gesture. If on a day when I am feeling particularly down, I hear his car pull into the garage, am I being weirdly demanding when I wonder whether today might be a day that he will so surprise me, because I want something to cheer me up? I don't see the difference between my wondering, and Harry's. > Magpie: > I don't actually consider it that in character for > Kreacher to zap himself into his master's bedroom with sandwiches if > he's gone to bed. zgirnius: I do see proactive services for Harry as in character for Kreacher, on the basis of the change we see at 12 GP in DH. In those scenes, Harry has more important things on his mind than instructing Kreacher in how he would like him to dress and groom himelf, the degree of shine the copper pots should have, his preferences in tableware, and his favorite dishes. So I presume the fact that Kreacher is neatly dressed and well-groomed, the house is sparkling, and Kreacher endeavors to tempt Harry's palate with his favorite foods, to mean that Kreacher has taken it upon himself to provide for Harry's comfort. > Magpie: > And then again we're back to Harry nipping down to > the kitchen for a snack later when he just said he's thinking about > Kreacher bringing him a sandwich in bed. zgirnius: We are not told what Harry might or might not do if it turns out that Kreacher does not bring Harry a sandwich. I presume he will sleep, because he is very tired, and presume he will thereafter obtain food in some way. I could be wrong, maybe he will summon Kreacher. But this is by no means a fact stated in the text. From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 29 03:11:10 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:11:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher/Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > No, it says his bed *is* waiting for him, and he is *wondering* about > a sandwich. A certainty (the bed), and a wondering (the sandwich). > > This does not seem convoluted at all to me, as it is a straight > recounting of what I thought when I read the book. The meaning of the > line as far as I see it that Harry is exhausted and starving. In my > own experience, when I am in this condition, exhausted wins, hands > down, and it seems Harry is the same. I am not willing to exert > myself to get food. Likewise, Harry settles for his nice bed upstairs > in Gryffindor Tower (the one that we are told is definitely there and > lying waiting for him) and then it vaguely occurs to him that it is > possible, if he is lucky, that food will find him anyway through the > agency of Kreacher (the sandwich that he wonders about whether it > might appear). > > He is going upstairs to sleep, as the passage indicates. If Harry > plans to summon Kreacher and order the sandwich, why does Harry > *wonder* whether Kreacher *might* do something? He knows quite well > that if he orders Kreacher to bring him a freshly baked steak-and- > kidney pie, butterbeer, and treacle tart, these items *will* appear. va32h: Because that's the way JK Rowling talks. If a person says "I wonder if I might trouble you to hand me that pot of mustard" they aren't literally contemplating the notion of whether they may or may not ask you to hand them the mustard. They are asking you to hand over the mustard and using a lot of extra words to do it (and I'm thinking this is a British sort of thing to do, but British listies can correct me). Harry is tired and thinking of his bed and then it occurs to him that he has the means to get a sandwich *in* bed, via Kreacher. va32h From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 03:34:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:34:28 -0000 Subject: House Elves and War and peace WAS: Re: Harry's remark about Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178595 > Alla: > > "If people do not like their 20 century hero owning a slave, they > just do not like it." Well, yeah. They just do not like it, this is > very true. > > But sorry, the second part is just not working for me. I just gave > you an example of the novel where situation with the slaves was not > resolved either AND there was no hint whatsoever that it will be > resolved at all. > > So, to me the comparison actually working very well. Loose > comparison obviously, but comparison nevertheless. Magpie: I don't see how it's not working. I said, 'If people don't like their 20the century hero (meaning Harry) owning a slave, they just don't." Whether or not they like characters who live in the 19th century in a time when there actually would have owned slaves is a different issue, as is whether they'd like any other fantasy world with slavery. I think when they protest about Harry it's because of the way JKR presented it and how he is with it. I don't assume things are changing the way I would in a historical novel where I *know* things will change because history has shown it to me. I don't see House Elves as shown as all that ugly in canon either. Harry himself moves in the opposite direction with them, starting out thinking the idea is strange and winding up being the Master of one. Magpie: But they, unlike the people based on real people in a historical novel, will never decide that they should fight for more, because they only exist in these pages. I don't even see any hint that it's an ugly issue. What's ugly about it according to anybody in canon, some of whom are like us? Hermione originally did but she seemed happy enough with it by the end. Harry doesn't seem to be shown as falling from grace when he gets a slave. On the contrary, it seems more like a good lesson when he sees the correct way to treat one. Whether JKR thinks House Elves are in their proper place or not doesn't much matter since they don't exist outside this story. I don't think the ending suggests there's any big problem there. > zgirnius: > No, it says his bed *is* waiting for him, and he is *wondering* about > a sandwich. A certainty (the bed), and a wondering (the sandwich). > > This does not seem convoluted at all to me, as it is a straight > recounting of what I thought when I read the book. Magpie: If Harry is wondering if Kreacher will be bringing him a sandwich just because he sees he's not in the dining hall and so will follow him with it to his bed just in case he wants it, Harry's expecting even more from his slave than I thought. That doesn't make Harry seeing himself as any less of the entitled master than he would if by thinking Kreacher "might bring him" a sandwich he meant he might arrange that too. zgirnius: The meaning of the > line as far as I see it that Harry is exhausted and starving. In my > own experience, when I am in this condition, exhausted wins, hands > down, and it seems Harry is the same. I am not willing to exert > myself to get food. Likewise, Harry settles for his nice bed upstairs > in Gryffindor Tower (the one that we are told is definitely there and > lying waiting for him) and then it vaguely occurs to him that it is > possible, if he is lucky, that food will find him anyway through the > agency of Kreacher (the sandwich that he wonders about whether it > might appear). Magpie: If Harry's walking out thinking, "Even though I haven't even expressed any interest in a sandwich, perhaps my slave will just bring me one" that doesn't make Harry any less seeing Kreacher as his slave who lives to serve his needs and wishes. zgirnus: > He is going upstairs to sleep, as the passage indicates. If Harry > plans to summon Kreacher and order the sandwich, why does Harry > *wonder* whether Kreacher *might* do something? He knows quite well > that if he orders Kreacher to bring him a freshly baked steak-and- > kidney pie, butterbeer, and treacle tart, these items *will* appear. > Magpie: I thought it was because he was still imagining what he (Harry) would do. He doesn't sound like he's doing anything but considering asking Kreacher for a sandwich there. He hasn't asked him for it yet, but he's considering asking, "Kreacher, might you bring me a sandwich?" zgirnus: > zgirnius: > I do not understand how a vague wish is a weird demand. I like it > when my boyfriend surprises me with a gift or card or similar > gesture. If on a day when I am feeling particularly down, I hear his > car pull into the garage, am I being weirdly demanding when I wonder > whether today might be a day that he will so surprise me, because I > want something to cheer me up? I don't see the difference between my > wondering, and Harry's. Magpie: You just answered why it's a weird demand to me. Because you're having Harry think about his slave elf like he's his boyfriend that he's thinking ought to know he's exhausted and bring him a sandwich because he loves him. For me the slave/master relationship makes spontaneous gift from boyfriend to girlfriend impossible. zgirnus: So I presume the fact that Kreacher is neatly > dressed and well-groomed, the house is sparkling, and Kreacher > endeavors to tempt Harry's palate with his favorite foods, to mean > that Kreacher has taken it upon himself to provide for Harry's > comfort. Magpie: Yes, because Kreacher loves being Harry's slave now. Whether or not Harry is going to ask for the sandwich or is merely hoping Kreacher will bring him what he wants without his having to ask for it, he's still counting on Kreacher to be his slave creature, which was the problem with the line. The only difference of opinion here is how entitled Harry has become about Kreacher. zgirnius: > zgirnius: > We are not told what Harry might or might not do if it turns out that > Kreacher does not bring Harry a sandwich. I presume he will sleep, > because he is very tired, and presume he will thereafter obtain food > in some way. I could be wrong, maybe he will summon Kreacher. But > this is by no means a fact stated in the text. > Magpie: I still think Harry's "might" says that he's imagining asking Kreacher for a sandwich, and it never seemed to me that he was thinking anything else, but the point either is still that it's good to be a slave master. Whether Kreacher is expected to hop to when Harry calls him or show up with a sandwich just in case Master wants it that's the same. va32h: Because that's the way JK Rowling talks. If a person says "I wonder if I might trouble you to hand me that pot of mustard" they aren't literally contemplating the notion of whether they may or may not ask you to hand them the mustard. They are asking you to hand over the mustard and using a lot of extra words to do it (and I'm thinking this is a British sort of thing to do, but British listies can correct me). Harry is tired and thinking of his bed and then it occurs to him that he has the means to get a sandwich *in* bed, via Kreacher. Magpie: That's how I read it. -m From Walabio at MacOSX.COM Mon Oct 29 02:16:50 2007 From: Walabio at MacOSX.COM (=?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio=E2=80=BD?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:16:50 +0000 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFWere_James_Potter_&_Lily_Evans_really_Head-Boy?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_&_Head-Girl=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1193618355.3044.35031.m54@yahoogroups.com> References: <1193618355.3044.35031.m54@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <6F1E26A6-632B-48DE-8111-4F1C1BA6A14A@MacOSX.Com> No: HPFGUIDX 178596 ?Hello! ?How fare you? It seems that to be Head-Boy or Head-Girl, one must be firstly a Prefect. Rubeus Hagrid states that Lily Evens and James Potter were Head-Girl and Head-Boy. James Potter was never a Prefect. Perhaps James Potter and maybe also Lily Evans never were Head-Boy and Head- Girl: Rubeus Hagrid is very good at self-delusion. He believes that the most horrible monster are just misunderstood. He sent Ronald Billius Weasley and Harry James Potter to meet Aragog because he believed that Aragog is harmless. It seems likely that Rubeus Hagrid misremembers and that James Potter and Possibly Lily Evans were never Head-Boy and Head-Girl. ?Peace! -- "?alabio?" The first Intactivistic wiki on Earth devoted to Peaceful Beginnings: * - From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Oct 29 06:13:50 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:13:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178597 Magpie: > Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made > her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves > needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a > member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than > serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to > things that were claimed about real people (that they were better > off being slaves and happier that way). Dana: House-elves are not JKR's creations they are mythological figures said to inhabit houses and aid in tasks around the house. They are referred to as Brownies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(elf) JKR only changed them to fit her own story but the concept of house- elves and their servitude is not something JKR made up herself. Slavery has not been a predominant part of history in Britten or Europe as it has been in American history. That is not to say that Britten or other European countries have not made their hands dirty in relation to slavery as a concept, because there was certainly a lot of that going on in the colonies that these countries owned but within the countries themselves and especially Britten it was predominantly people of lower social orders that were exploited to deliver services to the aristocratic families or to factory owners. People did get paid but wages were low and working environments and hours bad and no one shied away for using child laborers. I understand your point of view but I just do not understand the concept of your objection for house-elves to want to be allowed to do what makes them happy. In my country they once tried to put a gipsy family into a normal house instead of letting them live their nomad lives in trailers. They were considered a nuisance when they lived in their trailerpark way of living, especially when they lived on land not owned by them. People wanted them gone, so the government thought it best to stick them in brick houses instead. This didn't work because these people were used to their nomad form of living and therefore could not adjust to living in such living arrangements and neighborhood, living in the way dictated to them. They liked to be gypsies and live a nomad life, it is not up to us to push them into another kind of living just because their life-styles do not fit ours. I think it is disrespectful to try to force your own concepts of living on to others that do not want to live in the same way you do. In case of house-elves they like to serve but that doesn't mean that wizards don't need to respect their being and the service they provide. As I said before to change the living conditions of house-elves you do not have to change the house-elf, if they do not want to change, what needs to change is the view the wizard has of them and treat them how they want to be treated. There are a lot of people who devote their lives in serving others and even if they are paid for their services doesn't mean that you are allowed to treat them badly just because you pay them for their services. You do not change the working arrangements of these people in something good by forcing them to chose a different profession. It is the attitude of those treating these people bad that should change. JMHO Dana From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 11:16:26 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:16:26 -0000 Subject: Favorite ( or second favorite ;) character moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178598 zgirnius wrote: > HBP: [Hermione's] lack of curiosity about *why* the Prince's recipes > worked so well for Harry. Del comments: 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 guess JKR wanted to keep her away from the HBP's book for some reason. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 11:28:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:28:59 -0000 Subject: House Elves and War and peace WAS: Re: Harry's remark about Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178599 > Magpie: > I don't see how it's not working. I said, 'If people don't like their > 20the century hero (meaning Harry) owning a slave, they just don't." > Whether or not they like characters who live in the 19th century in a > time when there actually would have owned slaves is a different > issue, as is whether they'd like any other fantasy world with > slavery. I think when they protest about Harry it's because of the > way JKR presented it and how he is with it. > > I don't assume things are changing the way I would in a historical > novel where I *know* things will change because history has shown it > to me. I don't see House Elves as shown as all that ugly in canon > either. Harry himself moves in the opposite direction with them, > starting out thinking the idea is strange and winding up being the > Master of one. Alla: That's right. But the distinction that you are making seem to be totally arbitrarily to me. You do not assume things will change with House elves the way you know things will change with serfs in War and Peace? Is that what you are seem to be saying? Eh, Prince Andrey and Pierre Besuchov and other characters of War and Peace also do not exist beyond the pages of War and Peace, right? The fact that in 1861 russian serfs were freed does not mean that in the world of War and Peace which ends in the second decade of the nineteenth century anything of the sort will happen. In fact, it does not happen. Just as in Potterverse no elves are freed, just Harry treats his slave now nicely and maybe because of that some other people will. But as I mentioned before through the novel (as you know) Tolstoy makes his main characters **attempting** to do something for serves which is done with different degree of success. To me that ( even I knew nothing of Tolstoy's real life) shows that he cared very much about the issue. Just as the fact of how Dumbledore treated Hogwarts elves and Dobby. what Hermione attempted to do with SPEW shows IMO that JKR cares about that topic. Society of War and Peace is fictional society too, the fact that it is based on the real one in more real way does not mean to me that society of WW is not based on some real ways of how society develops. On the contrary, it seems to me that the society is deliberately made to be very archaic and is bound to go through developments that many real societies did in the nineteenth century for example. Does that make sense to you? I am not asking you to agree with me or to be convinced, I am asking you to see the logic behind my argument. In essense what I am saying is that this sentence of yours: >I don't assume things are changing the way I would in a historical > novel where I *know* things will change because history has shown >it > to me. is probably our key disagreement. I do not see how I can NOT make that assumption. And what did you mean that people do not want another fantasy world with slavery?????? I am saying that just as in War and Peace this world does not have a satisfactory conclusion of elves storyline( to some people of course), because it sort of parallels real society development IMO. No concrete society, but sort of general metaphor so to speak. JMO, Alla. From biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph Mon Oct 29 11:20:31 2007 From: biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph (biancawatanabe_123) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:20:31 -0000 Subject: What really made Ron and Hermione always had a row in book 6? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178600 I can't really understand what made the two of them to quarrel and I don't understand why Ron was acting so odd as well as Hermione. If someone could just explain--? biancawatanabe_123 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 11:50:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:50:47 -0000 Subject: House Elves and War and peace WAS: Re: Harry's remark about Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178601 Alla: > In essense what I am saying is that this sentence of yours: > Magpie: > >I don't assume things are changing the way I would in a historical > > novel where I *know* things will change because history has shown > >it > > to me. > >Alla: > is probably our key disagreement. I do not see how I can NOT make > that assumption. > Alla: Oh dear, I got carried away again. I wanted to stress that actually I am not necessarily making this assumption either. What I am saying though that through the novels JKR said enough to make me believe that to leave house elves as slaves is NOT a happy ending for her. That is despite the fact that Harry is happy, etc and THAT is absolutely similar to how I see serfs situation in War and Peace. Ending seemed happy to me for main characters and serfs in war and peace also were not that unhappy at all. I think JKR said enough to make me believe that this is unresolved issue, not the "proper place" JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 29 12:06:09 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:06:09 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178602 > Potioncat (before): > > I suggest a new game! > > > > Which character sometimes reminds you of JKR? Or, Does JKR ever > display > > traits of one of her characters? Cite canon or at least refer to it. > No > > characters off limits this round. > > Ceridwen: > > Dumbledore. He was a twinkly-eyed mentor, but he had his dark side. > What author doesn't manipulate the actions of their characters to some > extent or another? Characters take on their own lives, and it's up to > an author to shepherd them back into the plot. As author, Rowling is > the Creatrix of the WW and the Supreme Mover of the plot. She is ?? Dumbledore's Dumbledore, and maybe the irony struck her. Potioncat: Creatrix?KBellatrix, That makes a nice word-play. Actually, I think she might enjoy torturing her fans?Kjust a little. Dumbledore is a good catch. As an author she's both Dumbledore and the Dark Lord. Just as LV killed Charity in front of his DEs, JKR killed Snape in front of her readers. I hope she doesn't have two many--or better, none or--LV traits in real life. But I wonder how Dumbledore-like she might be with studio executives and actors? Of course, she sowed discord and mistrust with one little comment about a certain wizard. > Ceridwen: > I suppose Hermione, Rowling's stated self-insert, should be mentioned. > Since I didn't see Rowling as a child, though, I'll have to take her ?? word on that. Potioncat: She's also talked about skipping classes. Not exactly like Hermione. While she seems to disdain ambition and cunning as virtues, she must possess both herself. So I nominate Fred and George. So that would make her a know-it-all jokester? ?? Carol responds: ?? And it just occurred to > me, as an older sister myself: JKR has a younger sister. Might some > part of the Lily/Petunia relationship (the early protectiveness or the ?? later jealousy) be based on that real-life relationship? Potioncat: Hmm--that could well be! And although I snipped your Lupin comments, I think those are good points. lizzyben: > > - Snape - Vindictive & petty, unable to get over past grudges, > oversensitive to perceived slights & injuries - leading to elaborate > plans for revenge. Snape's also the representation of grief, and of ?? endless, hidden, mourning for a lost loved one. JKR's shadow side. Potioncat: I was watching an early interview a long time ago and noticed how JKR sometimes hid behind her hair. Suddenly I "got" the curtains of hair she describes with Snape. So, while her hair isn't black and greasy (wonder if it was as a teen? greasy, not black), I think she gave Snape her hair. And of course, she put the words in his mouth. > lizzyben: > - Umbridge - Yep, sorry. Umbridge feels justified in inflicting > painful punishments because she feels the student deserved it for not > supporting the Ministry. JKR feels justified in inflicting painful > punishments on Marietta & Zacharias, because she feels the characters ?? deserve it for not supporting Harry. Potioncat: Ouch! Good point. I can see both LV and Umbridge in this light. I wonder if she harbors any of this in real life? > >Lizzyben > I think almost every character is some aspect of the author herself. > This is arguably true of all literature, but "Harry Potter" more than > most. The series is ultimately very dream-like, like we're wandering > through JKR's psyche. IMO, that's what gives the narrative so much > power & resonance, and that's also what makes it feel so dangerous in > some ways. IMO, HP could be seen as a Gothic novel. Typically the > Gothic novel will feature some huge rambling mansion that is a symbol > of the owner's own mind. I think Hogwarts castle is a representation > of JKR's own mind, and all the people, places, fears & hopes she finds > there. (Disclaimer: All of the above is just IMO!) Potioncat: Hogwarts as JKR's mind! The castle is a place that constantly changes, and is full of secrets. Hmmmm. Very good points! Anyone else want to play? From amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 29 14:09:05 2007 From: amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk (AmanitaMuscaria) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:09:05 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > Potioncat: > > > I suggest a new game! < > > > Potioncat, who has compartmentalized all deep, dark thoughts about DH > > into a tidy little box and hid it behind tasseled shawls, poufs, and > > pictures of too cute kittens. > > > lizzyben: > > Well, here's my list & you did say no one was off limits! > > - Snape - Vindictive & petty, unable to get over past grudges, > oversensitive to perceived slights & injuries - leading to elaborate > plans for revenge. Snape's also the representation of grief, and of > endless, hidden, mourning for a lost loved one. JKR's shadow side. > > - Dumbledore - Puppetmaster!JKR. Moving characters around in order to > fulfill their mission & getting frustrated that they keep following > their own motivations instead. Putting everyone in place for the grand > plan, that falls apart in the end. Visionary, creative, cold. > > - Hermione - JKR's self-insert, of who she actually was as a teenager. > Intelligent, swottish, insecure, loyal to her friends. > > - Ginny - JKR's idealized vision of who she *wishes* she was as a > teenager. The shy quiet girl who suddenly becomes beautiful, witty, > strong, popular, totally self-confident & kick-ass. > > - Luna Lovegood - a dreamer who lives up inside her own head, making > up impossible stories about magical creatures & not paying attention > in chemistry class. > > - Umbridge - Yep, sorry. Umbridge feels justified in inflicting > painful punishments because she feels the student deserved it for not > supporting the Ministry. JKR feels justified in inflicting painful > punishments on Marietta & Zacharias, because she feels the characters > deserve it for not supporting Harry. > > - Merope - represents the fear of being a "bad mother" or an incapable > mother. Merope is the only single mother in the series, & she arrived > in London in much the same state that JKR arrived in Edinburgh. Both > were part of a whirlwind marriage that ended within a year, & both > arrived in Britain totally broke, unemployed, poor and desperate. In > addition, Merope's story seems connected to the fear of childbirth, as > JKR was herself pregnant when HBP was written. IMO, that's the only > way to make sense of DD's comment that Merope died in childbirth > because she was weak & cowardly, & didn't love her child enough. > > - Lily Potter/Molly Weasley - the "good mother" or idealized mother, > who totally devotes herself to her children. > > - Tonks/Bellatrix Lestrange - "obsessive love" yet again. Both women > are motivated almost entirely by their love for a person who does not > love them back. I'm sorry, there's *someone* JKR can't get over. The > figure of obsessive love is defeated in the end by the figure of good > maternal love. > > - Voldemort - represents her fear of death; named "flight from death", > who can't accept the idea of mortality & doesn't believe in an > afterlife. Creates "Death Eaters", who will prevent death from > occurring. LV is basically obsessed with avoiding death. "Flight from > death" is defeated in the end by "master of death", who does accept > his own mortality. > > - Quirrel - fear of domination & control by another. Gullible young > person who leaves Britain to "see the world" & is instead seduced by a > malevolent figure. Extremely anxious, nervous, afraid. Representation > of one who has lost their own self & is instead dominated by a > threatening, controlling figure. A metaphor for domestic abuse. > > - Gryffindor - Idealized self - Bravery, nobility, strength, power, > true love, good mothers & happy families. Raised to the top tower, > shown to the world. > > - Slytherin - Shadow self - Ambition, cunning, bad mothers & obsessive > love compartmentalized to a deep dark dungeon and hidden under the > lake. Slytherin as the subconscious & shadow side. > > > I think almost every character is some aspect of the author herself. > This is arguably true of all literature, but "Harry Potter" more than > most. The series is ultimately very dream-like, like we're wandering > through JKR's psyche. IMO, that's what gives the narrative so much > power & resonance, and that's also what makes it feel so dangerous in > some ways. IMO, HP could be seen as a Gothic novel. Typically the > Gothic novel will feature some huge rambling mansion that is a symbol > of the owner's own mind. I think Hogwarts castle is a representation > of JKR's own mind, and all the people, places, fears & hopes she finds > there. (Disclaimer: All of the above is just IMO!) > > lizzyben > AmanitaMuscaria now - Me too! I'll play! (jumping up and down and waving her hand) Interesting observations above, all very valid. I particularly like your Hogwarts catch! Put me in mind of Gormenghast trilogy - Mervyn Peake... and whoever mentioned about JKR hiding behind her hair being echoed by Snape ...! I'll put in Aberforth. The shadowy figure in the background, we weren't sure who he was, but holding this vast sorrow within himself (ok, his was about his sister). Then, in the last book, he's allowed finally to talk about his emotions, which Harry wonders if he's ever spoken about to _anyone_ before? He harbours resentments for the brother (outer self) who copes with the world and manages/manipulates people and is seen as successful, he hides a world (Hogwarts entrance) behind a portrait of a loved one, he defends those he can whilst projecting an 'I don't care' front ... and I'm not going to say anything at all about goats. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From va32h at comcast.net Mon Oct 29 14:30:05 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:30:05 -0000 Subject: Build-An-Author a new canon game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178604 Harry's feelings after the battle of Hogwarts - feeling obligated to talk to the survivors and share in their grief and joy, yet commenting that they don't understand how tired he is and how much he longs to be away from the throng... Even on the first reading, I thought that was JKR describing her attitude toward the fandom. va32h From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Oct 29 14:58:32 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:58:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178605 Frankly I don't see any problem with this. Harry *WONDERS* if Kreacher *MIGHT* bring him a sandwich. He doesn't think 'I'll order a sandwich from Kreacher'. Given that Kreacher works in the kitchens he is the logical person to ask for food, not to mention being the only House Elf Harry can easily get in touch with. BTW I'm sure Harry did get his sandwich. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 15:02:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:02:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178606 Magpie wrote: > Regardless, Harry is thinking of himself in that last line. He's just thinking of having Kreacher make him a sandwich and that brings in all the baggage that comes from having a slave race and making your hero an owner of one. Harry's thoughts are about what he wants in that last sentence. > > I don't see "Maybe I'll have Kreacher fix me a sandwich" as a sign of his great spiritual awakening or mature growth. I think he just wants a sandwich and by now asking his slave to make him one is the thing that comes into his head. He's never been particularly interested in abusing House Elves. He would have preferred it if Kreacher had been eager to serve him before, too, I'd guess, but if he needed something done he just had to tell him to do it. I think he'd do the same thing now. He's already settled into a smooth master/servant relationship back in Grimmauld Place long before he "died." > > Asking his now loyal House Elf to do something isn't like asking Ron to do something, where there'd be some discussion about whether Ron felt like making him a sandwich and why Harry wasn't making it for himself to begin with. Ron's an equal who might be willing to make Harry a sandwich as a favor or if Harry gave him something in return, but Harry probably wouldn't ask him. If Kreacher said stuff like, "Kreacher is a little worn out right now, maybe Master could skip his sandwich?" he wouldn't be a House Elf. > I didn't say that JKR said that slavery "was good" meaning that she supports slavery in our world, I said she presented it as a perfectly acceptable (to Harry) part of the WW. I don't think she's saying anything much at all about slavery to anybody--except maybe that it can be really cool to have a sentient being who lives to serve you and would be upset by your not ordering them around so you get to be a slaveowner and be considered to be treating others well. I don't think she's teaching anybody any lessons about the history of how slavery was abolished in the US or anything about history at all with them (and slavery was an important issue at the time of the Civil War > and stated as a reason for going for war). In fact, I think one could argue that creating a slave race who is happier as slaves is writing history the way many people would want it to have been--people who wanted slavery to be considered the natural state of the enslaved race. Nobody's abolishing slavery one way or the other in the WW. > > In short, I think she just came up with the House Elves as a wholly > fictional creation--one that happens to have a lot in common with > romantic notions of real world slavery, but is not supposed to be an > argument for it. But now that it's done I don't think Harry Potter > the slave owner has anything to teach the non-slave owners reading > the books about anything on the subject. He's the one who's taken the > big step back here in having a slave, and I don't see the House Elves > as saying much of anything about the history of slavery in the real > world. > > Lizzyben: > People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think > it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted > freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has > survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave > owner. > > Magpie: > That's the way I read the last line too. Everything in its proper > place and Harry has his real life back. He can sleep in his own bed > at Hogwarts with his friends and have his loyal Elf make him a > sandwich. It's Voldemort who wanted social reform (albeit for the > worse), not Harry. If Harry met another Dobby who wanted to be free > he'd happily free him, just as Dumbledore offered the House Elves at > Hogwarts freedom and they rejected it. As a Wizard it's Harry's noble > duty to show noblesse oblige. Harry has just returned to the life he > was living in Grimmauld Place where Kreacher cooked and cleaned and > fawned over everyone and they accepted it as their due and the way > things were supposed to be. Harry's doing Kreacher a favor by asking > him to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Whether or not she > supports slavery in our world--which I highly doubt she does--she's > defended and justified it in her fictional world. > > > > > Dana: > > I never thought of House-Elves in regards to slavery and thus I > never > > perceived Harry wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as > > Harry embracing the role of a proud slave owner. > > I think it was supposed to be an indication that Harry now > considered > > Kreacher as part of his family. > > Magpie: > The same way he was a part of the Black family--he's the family > servant. He's not a Black. Kreacher waits on Harry. He doesn't have > an equal relationship. He cooks and cleans for him. > > Dana: > Which is not the same thing as > > you suggest because if Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to serve Harry > > and thus still not acknowledge him as his master, then Harry could > > order Kreacher to make him a sandwich but be better off not eating > > it, because it would probably contain something that wouldn't be > > agreeable for a human being to eat. Just like Kreacher followed > > orders to spy on Draco but essentially gave Harry nothing useful in > > regards to what Harry wanted to know. > > Magpie: > The fact that Kreacher is a better slave when Harry's done something > to make Kreacher consider him his rightful master does not make > Kreacher no longer a slave. Kreacher had to acknowledge Harry as > Master in HBP. Now he likes him being his master. He's still his > master. Once Kreacher has accepted Harry as his *rightful* master, > all his thoughts become about what's best for Harry. Kreacher no > longer has wants of his own. He might sometimes disagree with Harry > on what's best for Harry. That's what makes the whole idea such a > fantasy--and I would think a bit of a threat to one's character > myself. > > Dana: > > Of course one could argue about the fact if this was specifically > > well written to support such an interpretation but I think if you > > look at everything that is written about house-elves then it is > less > > hard to see it like that(IMO). > > The house-elves at Hogwarts are appalled not only at Winky for > being > > disowned by her family but also about Dobby's embracement of > freedom. > > It is not the house-elves way of living. > > When the trio visited the kitchen for the first time all house- > elves > > practically fell over one another to serve the kids to whatever > they > > wanted. > > Magpie: > We're not disagreeing over whether House Elves like to serve. I know > they like to serve and that it's in their nature. I know how they > show they're displeasure within their abilities when they don't > really want to do something. They're born to be slaves. Harry has > accepted being master to one of these born slaves. The willing slave > who serves out of love is a tempting idea, isn't it? That's what > Harry's got now and he knows it. (And I think it's a bit of a stretch > to now claim, just because Harry's thinking about having Kreacher > make him a sandwich, that it's also in a House Elf's nature to be > hurt any time his master lifts a finger for himself--that doesn't > always seem to be the case.) > > Dana: > > The issues surrounding SPEW where, in my opinion, never really > about > > elf rights or the condemnation of slavery but all about Hermione's > > ill attempts to impose her own ideas on what house-elf rights > should > > be with total disregard to the needs of the elves themselves. > > Magpie: > Yes, because the story here isn't about the abolition of slavery for > House Elves. Slavery's fine in this universe when it involves House > Elves. As Harry and Hermione both seem fine with in DH. > > Dana: > > JKR's point was never about slavery but about understanding that > > different people or different groups of people have different needs > > and you can't just assume that all they ever need is precisely the > > same as your own needs in life or even that all of them should > accept > > change because one person from such a background chooses to life > > differently. > > Magpie: > Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made > her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves > needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a > member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than > serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to things > that were claimed about real people (that they were better off being > slaves and happier that way). > > It's understandable that people can find Harry's casual acceptance of > his position distasteful even while understanding that House Elves > really aren't like people and some how are made to be slaves. You > don't have to not get House Elves' nature in order to not like > Harry's position in the end. It's hardly "dumping" a slavery issue > into it when we're introduced to House Elves via Dobby who actually > acts like a human and not an animal because he wants freedom. Then we > get Hermione also talking about elves like they're being oppressed by > slavery--and JKR I think even said she thought Hermione was right. > Later both Harry and Hermione are fine with being waited on by > Harry's slave, but can't you see why people would find this version > of "respect other peoples' needs" to be a bit distasteful and > suspicious given the only way to apply it in the RW? It's one thing > for me to respect the right of a Muslim woman to dress herself in a > way she thinks shows respect for God, or give anyone the right to > stay in an abusive situation. It's quite another for me to believe > another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property > because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is > what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other > peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as > potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it > confusing. > Dana: > > > For a house-elf to be happy he must be allowed to do what he has been doing for centuries -> serve wizarding kind and the only thing that can be changed is how wizards treat house-elves. To change the bad conditions of the house-elf you do not need to change the house-elf but the behavior of wizards in regards to house-elf. > Magpie: > That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by House Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave owner." Carol: And within the context of the WW, there's nothing wrong with that. If you have a slave, you have a moral obligation to treat him (or her) well, with respect and consideration and understanding of House-Elf psychology, which includes the desire to serve a loved or respected master or mistress. You can't free a House-Elf without disgracing him and making him miserable. Noblesse oblige, exactly. And asking for a sandwich on the morning after a battle, when the House-Elves are probably preparing breakfast, anyway, for those who aren't sleeping in (I assume that the students who didn't fight are returning to school), is not a hardship or in any way unreasonable. It's just asking Kreacher to do his job. Magpie: The point really isn't that Kreacher will be unhappy at Harry asking him to make him a sandwich, it's people saying they don't like this kind of situation no matter how justified it is in this universe. They don't want their hero having a slave and don't much admire him when he's thinking about what food he wants his slave to bring him in bed. They might not see any reason for him to have a servant at all. Carol responds: To respond to the last paragraph first, the readers who are having that reaction are thinking of real-world slavery, IMO. Harry has a servant because he inherited one, and he can't free that servant with insulting and hurting him. From JKR's perspective, she can't have Harry free him. Kreacher and Harry are together till death do them part. While Harry is at Hogwarts, he can't make his own sandwich, in any case. True, he can walk down to the kitchen and ask for one, but it will still be made by House-Elves. Or he can have his personal House-elf Apparate to him (the wandless Apparition tha only House-Elves can perform, even at Hogwarts) and return almost instantly with a magically made sandwich. Either way it will be made by House-Elves, and if Harry summons Kreacher to do it, Kreacher will consider himself especially honored. And if Harry were at 12 GP with Kreacher, he probably wouldn't be able to make his own sandwich, either, unless Kreacher was too old or ill to do it. ("What is master doing in Kreacher's kitchen? Wash your hands, Master Harry, and sit down. Kreacher will make the sandwich.") If Harry (exhausted though he is by a long day of battle and self-sacrifice) could just go to the kitchen and make himself a sandwich, it would be different. But the kitchen will be full of House-Elves who wouldn't think of letting a wizard make his own sandwich. So it's Kreacher or the Hogwarts Elves in general, who might even compete among themselves for the honor. Surely, summoning Kreacher is not only the simplest and most logical solution but the one that Kreacher and the other House-Elves are most likely to approve. House-Elves aren't people. They likes work, miss, better than they likes freedom or wages. It may be their nature or it may be the enchantment, but either way, that's just the way it is. What they absolutely don't want is enforced "freedom," which is just another word for unemployment and disgrace. We lives to serve, miss. It's very different from asking Ron, who can't Apparate within the castle or make a sandwich by magic any more than Harry can (I don't mean conjuring it out of thin air, which not even House-Elves can presumably do) to do what he could do just as well himself. He *can't* make a sandwich in that castle because the House-Elves would consider it an infringement on their territory. I agree that JKR isn't condoning human slavery or making any statement about slavery at all. House-Elves are not people. All they want is to be treated well. We have to accept Hermione's assessment of House-Elf psychology (except for her perverse desire to free them) because it explains Kreacher's behavior and attitude in "Kreacher's Tale" perfectly and because we have no other canonical explanation. House-Elves do have thoughts and feelings, but they're not people, and they don't think like people. I doubt very much that Harry woke Kreacher from a well-earned nap. He was probably joining the other House-Elves in whatever work they were doing and waiting for his master to call him. As for the "slave race" (they're not a race of people; they're a separate species) and writing history the way she wanted it to be, she's not writing history here at all. She's writing fantasy. House-Elves are based on the brownies of folklore and have nothing to do with any human race whatever. (IMO.) Imagine the chaos and unhappiness in the WW if the Hogwarts House-Elves and others were freed. What would they do? Where would they go? They don't want to be paid. They'd probably ask for their old jobs back, please, miss. And if someone offered them payment and days off, they'd negotiate for *lower* pay and *fewer* days off, as Dobby did. Again, it's fantasy. Carol, who sees nothing wrong with Kreacher asking for a sandwich under the circumstances and is sure that the House-elves, including Kreacher, voluntarily returned to work the moment the Battle of Hogwarts was over From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 15:03:35 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:03:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178607 > Magpie: > > > Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made > > her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves > > needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a > > member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than > > serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to > > things that were claimed about real people (that they were better > > off being slaves and happier that way). > > > Dana: > House-elves are not JKR's creations they are mythological figures > said to inhabit houses and aid in tasks around the house. They are > referred to as Brownies. Magpie: Of course they're JKR's creations. The fact that she based them on brownies doesn't change that or mean nobody can react to their servitude in any way the way they want. I know slavery is not as much of an issue in Britain as it is in America, and that the House Elves can also be seen as working class types, but I don't think "They're brownies and they're not based on American slaves at all!" is the last say in the matter. Harry's relation to House Elves (not brownies, with which he would not have any relationship if they followed the mythology) has a lot in common with the upper class person's towards their inferiors in society, be they slaves or working class, so it's not surprising people respond to them as such. Or that they just respond to them as they are in the story and not the way they're supposed to respond to brownies. I think the way they're depicted in canon have a lot more in common with that sort of thing than the folklore about brownies Dana: > > I understand your point of view but I just do not understand the > concept of your objection for house-elves to want to be allowed to do > what makes them happy. Magpie: Then you don't understand my point of view, because I haven't argued anything about house elves not being allowed to do what makes them happy. I said it was guilt-free slavery with Harry being naturally deserving of a loyal slave and being waited on in bed while still being the champion of freedom because House Elves would actually fall apart and be miserable if they were freed. That's how JKR made them. I can find the fantasy being depicted obnoxious without being "disrespectful" of house elves or trying to force my own concept of living on house elves or claiming that people should be able to mistreat their servants. Harry's in a win-win situation here. He gets to be selfless by allowing himself to be waited on. lla: The fact that in 1861 russian serfs were freed does not mean that in the world of War and Peace which ends in the second decade of the nineteenth century anything of the sort will happen. In fact, it does not happen. Magpie: If these people are living in Russia and in Russia the serfs were freed a few decades later then yes, I think people would assume this means it will happen, of course. Alla: Just as in Potterverse no elves are freed, just Harry treats his slave now nicely and maybe because of that some other people will. Magpie: I'd assume there were people who treated them nicely anyway. Harry's behavior isn't very remarkable here. Alla: Society of War and Peace is fictional society too, the fact that it is based on the real one in more real way does not mean to me that society of WW is not based on some real ways of how society develops. Magpie: There is not equivalent of House Elves in our society. They're not people. They don't act like people. If they're the equivalent of dogs I don't see why I would assume that they're on their way to being freed. I do understand what you're saying about W&P's society. I just don't relate to that way of reading historical fiction. IF W&P ends in 1825 Russia I assume I'm supposed to be using whatever knowledge I have of later Russia in reading the book. Alla: And what did you mean that people do not want another fantasy world with slavery?????? Magpie: I meant that there are lots of fantasy novels and I'm sure plenty of them include slaves. But how people react to the slaves in the novel is going to be different depending on how the world's created, how the characters react to them, etc. I don't have a problem with their being slaves in the WW, and I don't automatically assume that slave=specific group of slaves from history as Dana assumed I did. Alla: Oh dear, I got carried away again. I wanted to stress that actually I am not necessarily making this assumption either. What I am saying though that through the novels JKR said enough to make me believe that to leave house elves as slaves is NOT a happy ending for her. Magpie: Could very well be true, but my not liking Harry's attitude doesn't depend on me thinking that JKR likes House Elves that way. I don't really care one way or the other how she feels about House Elves as slaves. I know I didn't end the novel with any feeling that the position of House Elves needed to change in any way. She could still write a book in the Potterverse where it did, certainly, but I thought Harry's happy ending was taking his place at the top of his society. It's really wonderfully bookended with the beginning of the book where we're introduced to Vernon. Harry has taken Vernon's place, only he's far more deserving. Rowena: Frankly I don't see any problem with this. Harry *WONDERS* if Kreacher *MIGHT* bring him a sandwich. He doesn't think 'I'll order a sandwich from Kreacher'. Given that Kreacher works in the kitchens he is the logical person to ask for food, not to mention being the only House Elf Harry can easily get in touch with. Magpie: Huh? You said Harry's not ordering a sandwich from Kreacher, and then say that Kreacher works in the kitchens and is the logical person to ask for food, and the House Elf he can easily get in touch with. Doesn't that obviously indicate that Harry is planning on ordering the sandwich he wants with Kreacher? -m From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Oct 29 15:06:09 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:09 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: <47252BA9.6020609@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > HP, the WW, DD -- they're all part of a fictional creation which doesn't exist outside the pages of the books. Rowena: It would perhaps be more accurate to say they don't exist outside JKR's imagination. However until actually put on paper the story is in the process of creation and hence likely to change. So basically we're coming to the same conclusion: JKR's statements are not canon. > If only that were possible. A fanfic author (sorry, don't recall who) > recently posted in this list that JKR's statement invalidated her own > writings involving DD descendants. Rowena: I think that would be me. The correct answer is that of course > it doesn't, as there is no homosexual DD in canon, but anyone attempting > heterosexual musings about DD in the future will have a tough row to hoe > despite the fact that it would be perfectly consistent with canon to do so. Rowena: Since I am incapable of following the canon of any fandom - (just check out my Fanfiction.com page) I'm not letting this problem worry me. Besides, gay men do have children sometimes don't they? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 16:10:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:10:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178609 > Alla: > The fact that in 1861 russian serfs were freed does not mean that in > the world of War and Peace which ends in the second decade of the > nineteenth century anything of the sort will happen. In fact, it > does not happen. > > Magpie: > If these people are living in Russia and in Russia the serfs were > freed a few decades later then yes, I think people would assume this > means it will happen, of course. Alla: Why? Maybe Tolstoy in his mind was going alternative history route? Why would you assume that it is going to happen in one work of fiction ( if it is non fiction, obviously different story) and will not happen in another? > Alla: > Just as in Potterverse no elves are freed, just Harry treats his > slave now nicely and maybe because of that some other people will. > > Magpie: > I'd assume there were people who treated them nicely anyway. Harry's > behavior isn't very remarkable here. Alla: Dobby is saying something different to me, that many people were treating them badly, so I would say that Harry's behavior is not the majority behavior, but regardless I was not saying that it somehow remarkable, but just a sign of change. IMO anyways. > Alla: > Society of War and Peace is fictional society too, the fact that it > is based on the real one in more real way does not mean to me that > society of WW is not based on some real ways of how society develops. > > Magpie: > There is not equivalent of House Elves in our society. They're not > people. They don't act like people. If they're the equivalent of > dogs I don't see why I would assume that they're on their way to > being freed. Alla: Wait a second, isn't it trying to have it both ways? You find the fact that sentinent beings are depicted as slaves distasteful, no? You find it looking like slavery and do not like Harry's attitude towards Kreacher sympathetic - asking him for a sandwitch, or thinking about it, etc. But when I am arguing the similarities with many work of fiction ( well, one, but I can certainly bring up a plenty of nineteenth century russian fiction, where writers cared very much about serfs situation, but nothing was done at the end of it - Take Gogol works, take Nekrasov, take Chechov, any of them) that just as there, nothing changed at the end, but writers were displeased with people being enslaved, then elves are not like people anymore? So, are they like dogs or are they like sentinent beings? And if they are like dogs, what IS wrong with their situation then? If they ARE sentinent beings, how exactly my comparison is not valid? > Alla: > Oh dear, I got carried away again. I wanted to stress that actually > I am not necessarily making this assumption either. What I am saying > though that through the novels JKR said enough to make me believe > that to leave house elves as slaves is NOT a happy ending for her. > > Magpie: > Could very well be true, but my not liking Harry's attitude doesn't > depend on me thinking that JKR likes House Elves that way. I don't > really care one way or the other how she feels about House Elves as > slaves. I know I didn't end the novel with any feeling that the > position of House Elves needed to change in any way. She could still > write a book in the Potterverse where it did, certainly, but I > thought Harry's happy ending was taking his place at the top of his > society. It's really wonderfully bookended with the beginning of the > book where we're introduced to Vernon. Harry has taken Vernon's > place, only he's far more deserving. Alla: Ok, I am sorry, but I feel like you are switching the topic of conversation in the middle of it. I thought we were arguing about whether that line of Harry, Kreacher and sandwitch shows whether house elves are in their proper place, did we not? Did I not say initially that Harry's happy attitude is something that I see and that to me it is irrelevant to whether JKR cares about House elves' situation or not? Sure, Harry's attitude is not something I like much here, but I thought the question was whether JKR shows the house elves situation as content or opened to interpretation. So, we both do not like Harry's attitude here. I do not care about it. My question is whether you see that JKR shows us that House elves' situation is not resolved, that it may be evolving OR NOT actually. Do you see that the writer showed us enough hints that the things are not as they supposed to be at the end, despite Harry being happy and all that, that not everything is good ad happy in Dutch kingdom? Thanks, Alla From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Mon Oct 29 16:20:18 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:20:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178610 On 2007, Oct 28, , at 14:36, Dana wrote: > > Sure that might seem weird considering he would request something of > Kreacher to do for him that he could easily have done himself I haven't been following all of this discussion, but I think one needs to mention, again, that at this point, Harry is still in Hogwarts. At school, students (excepting Fred and George) didn't go down to the kitchen to fix themselves a sandwich when they were hungry. They never fixed any meals for themselves. This was the job of the house-elves. [Think about how Snape reacted when Lockhart offered to make a Mandrake restoring draft. It was HIS job, not Lockhart's.] Asking Kreacher to fix him a sandwich might have actually been reassuring to the elf, reminding him that Harry still valued him - and giving him a minor return to normalcy. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 16:24:42 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:24:42 -0000 Subject: A sandwich Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178611 In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. Eggplant From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 16:39:14 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:39:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178612 > Magpie: > > That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse > oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by House > Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave owner." > > Carol: > And within the context of the WW, there's nothing wrong with that. If > you have a slave, you have a moral obligation to treat him (or her) > well, with respect and consideration and understanding of House-Elf > psychology, which includes the desire to serve a loved or respected > master or mistress. You can't free a House-Elf without disgracing him > and making him miserable. Noblesse oblige, exactly. And asking for a > sandwich on the morning after a battle, when the House-Elves are > probably preparing breakfast, anyway, for those who aren't sleeping in > (I assume that the students who didn't fight are returning to school), > is not a hardship or in any way unreasonable. It's just asking > Kreacher to do his job. Magpie: Exactly. Within the context of the Wizarding World there's nothing wrong with that. Individual readers may still find the whole concept distasteful, though, and prefer a hero who makes his own breakfast and doesn't have slaves. They might not care for the lesson of how one should treat one's slaves well. > Magpie: > The point really isn't that Kreacher will be unhappy at Harry > asking him to make him a sandwich, it's people saying they don't like > this kind of situation no matter how justified it is in this universe. > They don't want their hero having a slave and don't much admire him > when he's thinking about what food he wants his slave to bring him in > bed. They might not see any reason for him to have a servant at all. > > Carol responds: > > To respond to the last paragraph first, the readers who are having > that reaction are thinking of real-world slavery, IMO. Harry has a > servant because he inherited one, and he can't free that servant with > insulting and hurting him. >From JKR's perspective, she can't have > Harry free him. Kreacher and Harry are together till death do them part. Magpie: Of course they are. But that doesn't mean they don't get that Harry's been forced into having his slave and is responding by being a blessing of a slave master. I think they get that this is the case and just don't like it anyway. If somebody created a species where the women were less intelligent and wanted the men to take care of everything else because they were offended at doing anything but having sex and having babies. It might be true in their universe that the men really had no choice and it would be irresponsible and insulting to treat the women as equals, but that doesn't mean some readers might not read it and not care for their hero doing that or say, "Yeah, I get how it works but you can take your sex slave fantasy somewhere else, thanks." Especially if the story's also seems to have the desire to be seen as being about treating people who are different with the same respect you'd give people who were like you--guilt free slavery that's biologically justified for some doesn't really fit with that. Carol: > As for the "slave race" (they're not a race of people; they're a > separate species) and writing history the way she wanted it to be, > she's not writing history here at all. She's writing fantasy. > House-Elves are based on the brownies of folklore and have nothing to > do with any human race whatever. (IMO.) Magpie: Yes, I know. But that doesn't mean people have to be pleased with the whole story if they're not. For me House Elves are just one more "other" type that our heroes are better than and don't even much stand out in the elitist hierarchy. The statue in the MoM very much represents reality in the WW (the one with the creatures gazing up at the higher wizards, not the one Voldemort puts up). I know that there's no defense whatsoever for Harry setting Kreacher free, that in fact that would be hurting him. Kreacher isn't a person. He also isn't a brownie. He's the fictional creation he is. But Harry is a person, albeit a fictional one, and may continue to illustrate "why it's bad for people to be slave owners" to some readers even while Kreacher can't illustrate "why it's bad for people to be a slaves." Alla: Why? Maybe Tolstoy in his mind was going alternative history route? Why would you assume that it is going to happen in one work of fiction ( if it is non fiction, obviously different story) and will not happen in another? Magpie: Well, then, people are free to dislike that the characters in W&P have serfs. I certainly didn't like plenty of things about them. Eggplant: In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a reward is being unforgivably selfish. Magpie: Do the hp4gu bop! Somebody says they don't like the hero's last line reminding them how the author's engineered a situation where he has people he expects to wait on him. People argue that Harry thinking of asking Kreacher for a sandwich means anything but Harry having asking a servant to make him a sandwich. Other people reply that no, Kreacher seems pretty much is a slave to them and Harry owns him, and if they don't particularly like that then they don't and they probably won't be argued out of it. And then someone must swoop in like the ghost of Petunia Dursley who's heard people saying something less than wonderful about Dudley because omg, people are being hard on poor Harry YET AGAIN and are accusing him of being all kinds of horrible things when he's already suffered enough and they've just got it in for him. The poor boy can't even have a sandwich. Either you argue that Kreacher is not Harry's property and not Harry's servant and Harry could never order a sandwich from him or you hate Harry, probably hate sandwiches and don't deserve to have had your miserable life saved from Voldemort by Harry. For me, I think it's a lot easier to just call it like I see it: JKR created a species of fawning servile creatures that are apparently made to wait on Wizards lucky enough to own one, and not only does Harry own one but a House Elf is lucky to have such a great master. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 16:43:00 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:43:00 +0800 Subject: WHOSE DD is he? (Was: Re: Should JKR shut up? (was Re: I am so happy... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47260D94.8040008@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178613 CJ: > HP, the WW, DD -- they're all part of a fictional creation which > doesn't exist outside the pages of the books. Rowena: > It would perhaps be more accurate to say they don't exist > outside JKR's imagination. CJ: Hmm ... but this IS the problem, isn't it? If I say the characters are "real" or they "exist" what I mean is, of course, that they "exist" within MY imagination. My imagination has taken the words on the pages of a book, constructed the image of an individual in my mind, and then filled in the blanks *as my imagination saw fit*. In that sense, then, there are as many Dumbledores as JKR has readers, none of them the same -- and most particularly, none of them like the DD of JKR's imagination, except as they might happen to overlap through the words of JKR's book. And it is *those* characters -- the characters of *my* imagination -- that I fell in love with (or learned to loathe), that kept me spellbound and drew me back again for page after page after book after book. It is *not* the Dumbledore of JKR's creation that enraptured me -- it is the Dumbledore of *mine*. And this is why JKR is not only wrong but two parts offensive when she says, "He is my character. He is what he is." 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 her answer *should* have been was, "Look -- it's not *my* DD you care about -- he's not the one you fell in love with. It's the DD that exists within *you* that you wish to get to know better. And since I can't possibly know as much about your DD as you do, only you can answer the question. The question is not, 'Is DD gay?' but, 'Is *your* DD -- the one you created, the one you spent the last ten years getting to know -- is *that* DD gay?'" That's the kind of respect JKR's readers deserve. [Note: it is not my intention to argue that *my* DD was heterosexual (in fact, I had never thought about his sexuality), or that I find the thought of a homosexual DD offensive. DD's sexual orientation is simply a stand-in in the above argument for "Character Trait X", where "X" stands for any character trait not in canon that my imagination has already filled in. By *not* including it in canon, JKR left it to my imagination to fill in, but then comes along after the fact declaring her absolute right to sh**-can *my* DD (or Ron, or Neville) and shove hers down my throat.] CJ: > A fanfic author (sorry, don't recall who) recently posted in > this list that JKR's statement invalidated her own writings > involving DD descendants. Rowena: > I think that would be me. Ah, thanks. I did a quick search but couldn't find your post. > I'm not letting this problem worry me. Besides, gay men do have > children sometimes don't they? Why yes, they do, of course. I'm also not bothered particularly by a homosexual DD; only insofar, as I've said above, as it represents JKR's fundamental mis-understanding of the author-reader relationship, and the subsequent disrespect she has shown to us by insisting that she has the right to control *my* DD. --CJ From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 29 16:45:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:45:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178614 > Magpie: > I don't know what wage slaves have to do with anything here. It's not > like Harry has to be either one, or you have to choose one or the > other. Pippin: I was trying to point out that it seems what you are objecting to is a power differential, not slavery. If Kreacher was dependent on wages, he would not feel free to refuse his boss's orders, and the abolition of slavery in the WW would not change that one bit. > Magpie: > I don't see "Maybe I'll have Kreacher fix me a sandwich" as a sign of > his great spiritual awakening or mature growth. Pippin: LOL! Of course not. The spiritual awakening is, to me, the reason that Harry will support Hermione's desire to improve things for the Elves despite that if she ever succeeds he'll be out a sandwich maker. He wasn't entirely in sympathy with it before. We know that Elf rights matter very much to Hermione, and canon does not give us any reason to expect that to change. We also know, from the efforts of Fudge and Scrimgeour, that an endorsement from Harry Potter is a big deal. That Elf rights didn't make it into the epilogue doesn't prove to me that nothing was being done for them. The mist is JKR's invitation to us to imagine what we're not being told, IMO. And after making an issue out of Crouch Sr's neglecting his son for his public duties, what message would it send to have the Trio, who are on that platform to see their children off, spend the whole time talking shop, as if their kids, even on their first day of school, weren't worth even a few minutes undivided attention. Magpie: . If Kreacher said stuff > like, "Kreacher is a little worn out right now, maybe Master could > skip his sandwich?" he wouldn't be a House Elf. Pippin: Huh? So Kreacher wasn't being a House Elf when he was screaming, "Won't!" at the top of his lungs, and the Hogwarts Elves weren't being House Elves when they pushed the Trio out of the kitchen for insulting them, and Winky wasn't being a House Elf when she withdrew from service by drinking herself into oblivion? We see over and over that House Elves feel distress when they're being treated badly and find ways to make it known to their masters. When they are happy to serve that's their *choice*, which canon asks us to respect even though we can't understand it and it calls up uncomfortable associations with lies about slavery in the real world. There is absolutely no hint in canon that we should believe anyone who tells us real slaves are happy. We are shown we shouldn't accept the authority of teachers or government or books or parents as the last word on anything. Books, as someone mentioned, can be misleading. I took the mention of Kreacher as JKR's way of telling us that Kreacher had survived, that he was okay, and that Harry had come to terms with the awkward embarrassing situation of owning an Elf -- a bit like the story of Dumbledore and Arianna, but with a happier ending. Of course it would have been happiest of all if Arianna and Kreacher could have been cured of their dependency, but that's not always an option. I vehemently disagree with the idea that people in an unequal relationship can't genuinely love. That would leave very little room for love in the world. Neville's parents, to take an extreme example, can't be allowed any power. Does that mean he is he exploiting them by accepting the gum wrappers? I just finished re-reading a Pratchett book, The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rats, which I think has the kind of ending some people were hoping for in Harry Potter. A new era dawns between warring peoples, and everyone is happy about it except for "some minds you couldn't change with a hatchet." It's a nice read, and I recommend it. But Rowling's universe is more real to me, if not quite so uplifting, because, as this list proves, *most* minds can't be changed with a hatchet. And so, for those who would like hatchets to be a last resort, progress must come slowly. If you think about it, Harry's four poster is not his proper place anymore, he hasn't slept in it for almost a year, and unless Kreacher has thought to fetch his things, they aren't there. And I bet that aside from any captured DE's there isn't a soul in the castle who wouldn't drop everything to make a sandwich for Harry if he so much as hinted that he wanted one. It's a brave new world for Harry, he just hasn't realized it yet. Magpie: It's quite another for me to believe > another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property > because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is > what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other > peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as > potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it > confusing. Pippin: Who are these confused people? I haven't heard from anyone who finished the book and thought, gosh, what the world needs is to train/breed a bunch of people to serve us as House Elves. I think canon shows clearly that although the idea has attractions, if you could do that, it would be cruel and unwise. It does show how, once you have such a situation, it isn't easily set right, which is all the more reason not to get into it. It seems like what you're worried about is people picking up on the attractions of having a slave race, but not getting the part where it's shown to be cruel, demeaning and just plain weird. IMO, you would have to be reading very selectively, with a pro-slavery agenda already in place, to pick up a message like that. Can anyone imagine a member of the KKK waving their copy of DH around and saying, "See! Rowling supports slavery!" The world would laugh itself sick It seems to me that it takes a fair amount of nitpicking and convoluted reasoning to make the books into anything but what their author says they are, a prolonged plea for tolerance and understanding, and an encouragement to question authority. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Oct 29 17:12:48 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:12:48 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtIUGZvckdyb3dudXBzXSDCv1dlcmUgSmFtZXMgUG90dGVyICY=?= =?UTF-8?B?IExpbHkgRXZhbnMgcmVhbGx5IEhlYWQtQm95ICYgSGVhZC1HaXJsPw==?= Message-ID: <15157169.1193677968834.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178615 From: ?alabio? > It seems that to be Head-Boy or Head-Girl, one must be firstly a >Prefect. Rubeus Hagrid states that Lily Evens and James Potter were >Head-Girl and Head-Boy. James Potter was never a Prefect. Bart: A little bit on public school economics: public schools generally operated on a tight budget. Therefore, any reduction of expenditure that they could achieve without reducing the quality of the education was taken. The concept of "prefects" were to allow the students to police themselves, thus reducing cost on supervisory personnel. It was justified as a "reward" to the students, and also that it was "character building". Head Boy and Head Girl was a somewhat different proposition. The idea of the Head Boy and Head Girl (as opposed to someone who gets into the potions too much, who is the Head Case, or the girl who is a mite too friendly with the boys, who is, well, you get the idea) is to represent the school. As such, criteria can vary greatly from school to school, from the students with the highest grades, to the favorites of the teachers, to voting by the student body itself. There is no indication how this was done and Hogwarts, however. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Oct 29 16:22:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:22:07 -0600 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_=C2=BFWere_James_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Potter_&_Lily_Evans_really_Head-?= =?UTF-8?Q?Boy_&_Head-Girl=3F?= References: <1193618355.3044.35031.m54@yahoogroups.com> <6F1E26A6-632B-48DE-8111-4F1C1BA6A14A@MacOSX.Com> Message-ID: <002c01c81a47$d9c6e530$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 178616 From: "alabio" It seems that to be Head-Boy or Head-Girl, one must be firstly a Prefect. Rubeus Hagrid states that Lily Evens and James Potter were Head-Girl and Head-Boy. James Potter was never a Prefect. Perhaps James Potter and maybe also Lily Evans never were Head-Boy and Head- Girl: Shelley: But why are you assuming that James was never a Prefect? We see only a little of his life, and we get that he entered school as less-than-perfect, but we know he changed. Prefects aren't first years, they are in year 5. That's a long time to change, and we don't see a lot of James's life then- only really brief snapshots. I think Hagrid's memories are correct. His views about animals are opinions, but we've never heard him lie about a fact. We see from Snape the memories of James he wants to hold onto- Snape wants to forever hold in his mind the reasons he hated James Potter. But, we hear from Hagrid another view, one held without malice toward James, one recognizing who he became. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 29 18:21:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:21:42 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_=C2=BFWere_James_Potter_&_Lily_Evans_really_Head-Boy_&_Head-Girl=3F?= In-Reply-To: <002c01c81a47$d9c6e530$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > From: "??alabio???" > > It seems that to be Head-Boy or Head-Girl, one must be firstly a > Prefect. Rubeus Hagrid states that Lily Evens and James Potter were > Head-Girl and Head-Boy. James Potter was never a Prefect. Perhaps > James Potter and maybe also Lily Evans never were Head-Boy and Head- > Girl: > > Shelley: > But why are you assuming that James was never a Prefect? We see only a > little of his life, and we get that he entered school as less-than- perfect, > but we know he changed. Potioncat: We know that Remus, not James was the Prefect for Gryffindor, just as Ron not Harry was the Prefect for their Hogwarts years. I'm pretty sure JKR has verified that Lily and James were the Head- girl and Head-boy when they were 7th year students. Lily was a prefect as well. I don't know the actual interview. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 18:38:39 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:38:39 -0000 Subject: Were James Potter & Lily Evans really Head-Boy & Head-Girl? In-Reply-To: <6F1E26A6-632B-48DE-8111-4F1C1BA6A14A@MacOSX.Com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, ??alabio??? wrote: > It seems that to be Head-Boy or Head-Girl, one must be firstly a > Prefect. Rubeus Hagrid states that Lily Evens and James Potter > were Head-Girl and Head-Boy. James Potter was never a Prefect. > Perhaps James Potter and maybe also Lily Evans never were Head-Boy > and Head-Girl zanooda: I think Lily could have been a prefect together with Remus Lupin. As for James, isn't it possible that he was Quidditch Captain? In HBP Hermione informs Harry that being Captain gives him "equal status with prefects"(HBP p.107 Am ed.). I don't know for sure, of course, it's just an idea :-). From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:44:30 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:44:30 -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 178619 Potioncat: > We know that Remus, not James was the Prefect for Gryffindor, just as > Ron not Harry was the Prefect for their Hogwarts years. > > I'm pretty sure JKR has verified that Lily and James were the Head- > girl and Head-boy when they were 7th year students. Lily was a > prefect as well. I don't know the actual interview. Ceridwen: 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. Ceridwen. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 19:22:18 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:22:18 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another > way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the > tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a > reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. > > It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. > > Eggplant ***Katie: I'm someone who is deeply disturbed by Harry's final remark regarding Kreacher, and I am in no way attempting to be "provocative". I was so shocked by that remark the first time that I read the book, that I was completely taken out of the story by it. The *line* is provocative, IMO. The problem is not that Harry is wondering about a sandwich - the problem is that he expects that Kreacher may bring him one. Here's a few reasons I have a genuine problem with that: 1 - Harry has just fought and won a war that was, at least in large part, a war against inequity in the WW. Voldemort and the DE's represent inequality and prejudice - Harry, as the de facto leader of the opposite side, represents the opposite of that. After fighting this long battle, supposedly to protect Muggles, muggleborns, and non-human magical creatures, Harry's wondering about his servant bringing him a asandwich...it is, at the very least, incredibly out of character. At the worst, he has completely missed the point of the war that he has just fought, and is upholding the hierarchy that he just fought to dismantle. 2 - Kreacher has put his life, and the lives of the other House Elves of Hogwarts, on the line for Harry and the cause (which he doesn't even personally believe in). At the very least, I would expect Harry to be thanking Kreacher for his loyalty and bravery. I would *hope* that Harry would never use Kreacher as a servant to even an errand-runner (a'la spying on Draco in HBP) again. I would *hope* that Kreacher's inspirational and admirable behavior would earn him the respect and the kindness of the WW, but especially the *master* for him he fought so valiently. 3 - Kreacher is really old!!! Harry's exhausted from the battle. All the young and semi-young wizards are exhausted and resting...and he wonders if his old, decrepit House Elf will bring him a sandwich!?! Poor Kreacher deserves a rest. Now, if Kreacher decided not to rest, that's Kreacher's business...but Harry shouldn't be expecting anything of him, at least I don't think so. As for Kreacher being imprisoned for his part in Sirius' death...since he has no legal rights, I don't think it would be very reasonable to hold him legally accountable for his behavior. That's pretty despicable. Much like imprisoning or putting to death African-American slaves for crimes that they had no legal right to defend themselves against. If House Elves are suddenly given legal citizen status in the WW, maybe I could see some sort of punishment being handed out. Maybe. I'm in favor of forgiving an old man who did finally choose the right path. As for "getting silly" from being too provocative...well, I don't think it's silly to question why Harry suddenly has a moment of acting like Lucius Malfoy or Barty Crouch - especially after his heartfelt and beautiful goodbye to Dobby. That comment about the sandwich just plain doesn't fit with Harry's character, and it jumps off the page as being odd and out of character, IMO. Katie From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Oct 29 19:33:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:33:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178621 Magpie: > Of course they're JKR's creations. The fact that she based them on brownies doesn't change that or mean nobody can react to their servitude in any way the way they want. Dana: No I disagree, the characters are her creations, the concept came from somewhere else, just like what she did with the werewolf thing. Werewolves are mythological creatures and JKR used that as a basis to create some characters (well two to be more precise). Both these concept are used to relay a story of morality in the way JKR wanted it to be portrayed within her books (if she succeeded is not the point I am trying to make here). Hippogriffs are not her creation either and neither are globins. She just used these concepts to build characters and with some, she not only used the mythological figures but also used parts of their folklore backgrounds. Brownies are literally elves of the house and they serve the inhabitants of that house as long as they find these inhabitants agreeable enough to serve, if not well the inhabitants will do better to move. This tale has been told to me by my English teacher a long time ago, although I did not remember how they were named until I looked it up. I am not stating that you can't react to the issues of house-elves in any way you want but when you state your opinion on a discussion board, I just assumed you wanted to discuss your opinion and not just post it so it can be read passively by others. I am not attacking you for your opinion just try to give a visual description of why I read it so differently from the way you do. What I was trying to say with pointing out the mythological background the house-elves are based on is that I do not think that JKR probably ever thought about the comparison people would make to slavery because house-elf servitude is part of almost all elf-like creatures in mythology and this part is not what she made up herself, she just personified the concept. Of course JKR did not do a whole lot of thinking about many of the concepts she put in her books, of which many are interpreted or give a different sense to how she probably intended them to be. Magpie: > Then you don't understand my point of view, because I haven't argued anything about house elves not being allowed to do what makes them happy. I said it was guilt-free slavery with Harry being naturally deserving of a loyal slave and being waited on in bed while still being the champion of freedom because House Elves would actually fall apart and be miserable if they were freed. That's how JKR made them. I can find the fantasy being depicted obnoxious without being "disrespectful" of house elves or trying to force my own concept of living on house elves or claiming that people should be able to mistreat their servants. Harry's in a win-win situation here. He gets to be selfless by allowing himself to be waited on. Dana: First I want to apologize if I gave the idea that *you* were trying to force your own concept of living on house-elves, Hermione was but not you ;o). It was meant as a general comment and not a personal one. I was not trying to make a point that it was YOU who was disrespectful because your ideas on how you perceived the house-elves issue are differently from mine. H?, I do not like Harry either well I liked him for a moment in OotP where he actually seemed to be more active (as in personality) then in previous books but then he got all docile again in HBP and all love was lost forever LOL I know JKR wanted to make him the epitome of perfection and it is surely not working for me either so maybe it is just me looking at some topics trying my hardest to bypass Harry as central point of view on how things should or shouldn't be. I do not look at what Harry wants but what Kreacher would have liked. And it is not even because I like Kreacher's story arc because Kreacher's tale totally put me off; give the creature some bling bling and he will kiss your insert whatever comes to mind forever. There are many things about the Kreacher angle that rube me the wrong way but I will not bore you with that. Of course it can be argued why Harry did trick Lucius in setting Dobby free while it was not his elf, while he never even makes such a suggestion towards Kreacher. Maybe it is just me imagining that the difference was predominantly in their personality that gives me the feel that Kreacher actually would not want to be set free in the way Dobby did but sure that should not be a reason for Harry to not even offer it to Kreacher. Still I think JKR was going for the Regulus vs. Kreacher thing when it comes to Kreacher vs. Harry. Although I am not sure there is a real likeliness to Regulus actually marched to his death because LV mistreated his house-elf but it does seem to be the angle JKR was going for. Somehow making Kreacher the center point to the death of the two brothers Black and then being a central point to Harry's living as a Black heir. Yes, Harry is in a win-win situation but then again he was from book one onwards because you know he is the author's favorite ;o) but still even if his supposed perfectness is giving me the creeps I still do not see Harry as a perfect slave owner because I fail to see the house-elves as a metaphor for slaves. And Harry's obnoxious perfection should not stand in the way of the idea that house-elves like to be house-elves or that the even more obnoxious Hermione actually was wrong about something for a change (well to bad the author needed to change that too by give her omniscient house-elf knowledge). Anyway I think I still got the idea about your objection but it is just my annoying habit to look at everything from a different angle. If house-elves want to serve wizards then I see no objection to Harry having a house-elf as long as Kreacher wants to be Harry's elf. JMHO Dana From martyman at ptd.net Mon Oct 29 19:09:57 2007 From: martyman at ptd.net (mbielawski) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:09:57 -0000 Subject: Lily and James Story Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178622 All this talk about Lily and James sound like it would make a great prequel to the HP books. I know JKR has no plans to write any additional HP related books at this time. I wonder if she will allow other writers to pick up the story. Any thoughs? From stephab67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 19:22:36 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:22:36 -0000 Subject: What really made Ron and Hermione always had a row in book 6? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178623 > biancawatanabe_123: > > I can't really understand what made the two of them to quarrel and I > don't understand why Ron was acting so odd as well as Hermione. If > someone could just explain--? stehpab67: There were a couple of reasons. The first came about because Ron got into an argument with Ginny because she was kissing Dean in public. Ginny, to spite him, told him that everyone except for Ron had already kissed someone, even Hermione, who kissed Viktor Krum. This played right into Ron's continued insecurities regarding Hermione and Viktor. He then started acting very badly toward her, but didn't tell her why he was upset with her. The second reason is that prior to a major Quidditch game, Ron was really nervous. Harry, trying to help him, faked giving Ron the Felix Felicis potion. Hermione saw this, and thought that Harry really had given it to Ron. After Gryffindor won the game, with Ron's many spectacular saves being a critical factor, Hermione told Ron that the only reason he was able to save so many goals was that Harry had given him the Felix. Harry then confessed that he really didn't give Ron the potion, which made Ron upset with Hermione as he interpreted her comment as saying that Ron was incapable of performing so well on his own (I can't say that I blame him for thinking this). Ron immediately took up with Lavender, which then upset Hermione. I think this was sometime in November, maybe someone else has a more accurate timeframe. After that, Hermione refused to speak to Ron, even after he attempted to make up with her after winter break. She didn't speak to Ron until he was poisoned on his birthday by the mead in Slughorn's office. They spent about four months or so not speaking to each other. From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 19:46:45 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:46:45 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178624 > eggplant107 wrote: > > In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet > another > way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the > tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a > reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. > > It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. > > Eggplant > JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided clothes, and who died a hero's death. JKR also created Hermione, the Muggleborn who stubbornly tried to free the elves whether they wanted freedom or not. Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion were it not for Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, along with Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves. So tell me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all? It seemed to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up being anything but. lealess From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Oct 29 19:52:28 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:52:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1193687548.9932.1218452625@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178625 (I hit reply on Magpie's post because that's when I thought of this, but this is a reply to the general debate) I think one major source of the disconnect between the two 'sides' here is a single passage, quite far removed from the infamous sandwich scene: 'You see, Kreacher was not able to betray us totally. He is not Secret Keeper for the Order, he could not give the Malfoy's our whereabouts, or tell them any of the Order's confidential plans that he had been forbidden to reveal. He was bound by the enchantments of his kind, which is to say that he could not disobey a direct order from his master, Sirius. But he gave Narcissa information of the sort that is very valuable to Voldemort, yet must have seemed much too trivial for Sirius to think of banning him from repeating it.' Some people have read "bound by the enchantments of his kind" as meaning that wizards, at some point in the distant past, placed some sort of magic spell on elves, enslaving them, and so this isn't a biological thing, it's artificial. I think that the key word is "of" - they're the enchantments "of" house elves, not of wizards on house elves. There is no reason, particularly giving that wording these "enchantments" cannot be naturally occuring in a magical species. -- Random832 From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Oct 29 19:58:09 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:58:09 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > > JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be > free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided > clothes, and who died a hero's death. The elf who got buried in DH, along with the notion of "free elf". Mus, disappointed. From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Mon Oct 29 20:03:47 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (terri_anneca) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:03:47 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178628 > > lealess says > JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be > free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided > clothes, and who died a hero's death. JKR also created Hermione, the > Muggleborn who stubbornly tried to free the elves whether they wanted > freedom or not. Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion were > it not for Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, along > with Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves. So tell > me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all? It seemed > to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up being anything > but. I've always felt that this story line wasn't anti slavery but pro don't judge a book by its cover. Although to Hermione the house elves were slaves who needed to be freed, they themselves didn't feel the need to be free. Perhaps she wrote this as a moral to people who seem to feel the need to inflict their beliefs on others, no matter how much they are unwanted. Terri From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 20:26:17 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:26:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Magpie: > It's quite another for me to believe > > another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property > > because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is > > what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other > > peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as > > potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it > > confusing. > > Pippin: > Who are these confused people? > I haven't heard from anyone who finished the book and thought, > gosh, what the world needs is to train/breed a bunch of people to > serve us as House Elves. I think canon shows clearly that although > the idea has attractions, if you could do that, it would be cruel > and unwise. Montavilla47: As I've been reading this exchange, I've been asking myself that question. And, I think it's fair to say that a lot of children might end up thinking that it would be cool if there were some magical race of elves that served us--just like it would be really cool to go to a Wizard school, or if there really were brooms that might allow us to fly. Pippin: > It does show how, once you have such a situation, it isn't easily > set right, which is all the more reason not to get into it. It > seems like what you're worried about is people picking up on > the attractions of having a slave race, but not getting the > part where it's shown to be cruel, demeaning and just plain > weird. IMO, you would have to be reading very selectively, with > a pro-slavery agenda already in place, to pick up a message > like that. Montavilla47: But the parts that are cruel, demeaning, and just plain weird are shown to be due to masters who are cruel, demeaning, and just plain weird. When it's Harry who, after an initial discomfort with slave-owning, practices good master behavior, the master/slave relationship is okay. Therefore, in order to come away with the message that slavery is bad, you need to come into the story with that idea. And say to yourself, "Well, it's all very good that Harry is responsible and kind, but we know that isn the way that slavery really works." Montavilla47 From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 20:38:37 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:38:37 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178630 Lealess: > JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be > free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided > clothes, and who died a hero's death. JKR also created Hermione, the > Muggleborn who stubbornly tried to free the elves whether they wanted > freedom or not. Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion were > it not for Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, along > with Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves. So tell > me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all? It seemed > to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up being anything > but. > > lealess lizzyben: I don't know, but it does seem like JKR originally intended to show that the house-elf slavery was a bad thing & then changed her mind later on. If anyone can explain to me how DH agrees with these quotes, I'll give them 1000 galleons. :) JKR in 2000 - "Bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of "that which is different from me is necessary evil." I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there's another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together ? no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That's human nature, so that's what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they're already ostracized, and then within themselves, they've formed a loathsome pecking order." JKR in 2005 - "Sam Dordoy for Ottakars - Your books have a theme of racism with the wizards oppressing other races and half?bloods. Do you think this has changed how people think when they read them? JK Rowling: ... I would hope that it has made people think, I mean I do not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am not trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at the same time, it would be great if the people thought about bullying behaviour or racism. The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already." Slytherins - In the quote, she says that the series explores the idea that different groups can be equal and good. In DH, we learn that which is different from Gryffindor is probably evil, and certainly not equal or good. Hierarchy of the wizarding world - She call the WW a "loathsome pecking order", with wizards at the top, goblins & centaurs ignored, and elves enslaved. This "loathsomeness" is reflected in the fake, fawning Fountain statues; in which the lesser magical beings look up at the might wizards with awe. She calls the house elves "slaves", and states that the house-elves represent the issue of slavery in the real world. This scene & that quote seem to establish that the existing WW hierarchy is *not* a good thing. But in DH, the existing loathsome order is restored, and no one seems to think there's a problem anymore. From a loathsome pecking order, it has become the right and proper order of society. House-elf slavery has gone from an evil to a good. The heroes don't care anymore about the ones on the bottom of the hierarchy, as they accept their place at the top. Now Harry doesn't want to free elves, he wants them to serve him. And all was well. I can't figure out if she was being dishonest about her message in the earlier quotes, if she totally changed her mind about the direction of the series, or is she honestly doesn't see the disconnect between her statements and the ultimate messages contained in the novel. lizzyben From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 20:47:35 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:47:35 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178631 "Katie" wrote: > I'm someone who is deeply disturbed > by Harry's final remark Wow, so that sandwich not only disturbed you it DEEPLY disturbed you. You disturb easy. > regarding Kreacher, and I am in no > way attempting to be "provocative". Don't be so defensive, everybody wants to be provocative and there's nothing wrong with that. Why do you thing authors write books trying to show what you thought was true is not, that the man generally regarded as a hero was really a villain and the man everybody thought a villain was really a nice man? I believe this is also the reason that in every Potter discussion group I've ever seen Harry and Hermione can do no good and Snape can do no wrong. Being provocative is good but you need more to work with than a sandwich. > I would *hope* that Harry would never > use Kreacher as a servant That would be just about as cruel a thing Harry could possibly do. I seem to remember something similar happened to Winkey and she went into a bit of a decline. > Poor Kreacher deserves a rest. And Harry didn't?! After he killed Voldemort the relieved wizards would have probably made Harry the king of the entire wizard world if he asked for the job, but he didn't, all Harry asked for is a sandwich. And you were shocked, shocked I tell you, at this unreasonable request. You think after the bloody Battle of Hogwarts all the survivors should have turned to Harry as one and shouted at the man who had just saved their life "Get your own damn sandwich Potter!" > I don't think it's silly Come on, be honest, not even a little? Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 29 20:58:23 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:58:23 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > > > In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another > > way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the > > tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a > > reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. > > > > It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. > > > > Eggplant > > > > ***Katie: > > I'm someone who is deeply disturbed by Harry's final remark regarding > Kreacher, and I am in no way attempting to be "provocative". I was so > shocked by that remark the first time that I read the book, that I was > completely taken out of the story by it. The *line* is provocative, IMO. > > > The problem is not that Harry is wondering about a sandwich - the > problem is that he expects that Kreacher may bring him one. Geoff: Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a subversive and questionable meaning in every sentence of the books? 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? Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 21:05:57 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:05:57 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178633 > > JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be > free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided > clothes, and who died a hero's death. JKR also created Hermione, the > Muggleborn who stubbornly tried to free the elves whether they wanted > freedom or not. Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion were > it not for Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, along > with Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves. So tell > me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all? It seemed > to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up being anything > but. > > lealess > Prep0strus: I'm with you. I just can't figure out why she bothered to include the storyline - even at its best, it was annoying, and no one came off well. Hermione, on her moral high ground, was probably-right-but-more-annoying-than-usual, Harry and Ron seemed insensitive, the house elves who didn't want to be free or have money seemed ridiculous, and Dobby... well, brave and cute and loyal, but no one has ever accused him of being the world's greatest thinker. But, I could respect where she was going. Finding another 'injustice' in her world, and showing how steps could be made to change things, at least a little. And it's not like I even mind the idea of fantastical creatures whose entire purpose is to clean and serve. If that's what they are, I'll accept them. Some creature that exists partway between a dog and a butler, that's how they were created, how they exist, and how they're happy. But by making Dobby want not just to be treated well, but to have freedom and payment, and then by making a huge deal out of it involving other elves and people and constant discussion on the topic, it became something more. It's still a difficult analogy, because house elves are not human, but they are 'people', kind of (but also, kind of not), but it seems like an ok fantasy analogy. But to then completely drop it, kill off the only elf that even wanted freedom, and have the resolution be... well, Ron thinks elves are decent enough... what? Harry getting a sandwich or not isn't the biggest issue to me - there are a lot of things that could be going through his head (including that Kreacher might be offended to not bring it, or that it's something he'll deal with tomorrow, or he's tired and doesn't care right now, or at least Kreacher won't ask questions, or... whatever), but that the story brought up this issue, kept it going over a few books, and then dropped it with zero resolution just seems odd to me. 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. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Oct 29 21:06:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:06:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: <1193687548.9932.1218452625@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178634 Random: > Some people have read "bound by the enchantments of his kind" as meaning > that wizards, at some point in the distant past, placed some sort of > magic spell on elves, enslaving them, and so this isn't a biological > thing, it's artificial. I think that the key word is "of" - they're the > enchantments "of" house elves, not of wizards on house elves. There is > no reason, particularly giving that wording these "enchantments" cannot > be naturally occuring in a magical species. Magpie: Just for my own perspective, I've always read "of his kind" to refer to House Elves and not Wizards--iow, that this kind of binding enchantment occurs in House Elves for whatever reason--it's not put on a House Elf like a Wizard. Like Remus is "bound" by the enchantments of his kind (werewolf) in a way--he transforms at the full moon. Dana: No I disagree, the characters are her creations, the concept came from somewhere else, just like what she did with the werewolf thing. Werewolves are mythological creatures and JKR used that as a basis to create some characters (well two to be more precise). Both these concept are used to relay a story of morality in the way JKR wanted it to be portrayed within her books (if she succeeded is not the point I am trying to make here). Hippogriffs are not her creation either and neither are globins. She just used these concepts to build characters and with some, she not only used the mythological figures but also used parts of their folklore backgrounds. Magpie: Oh yes, I know that the inspirational foundation for House Elves are brownies. But her versions of them follow her rules so looking to brownie behavior has limited uses. Brownies don't usually have interactions with people face to face, and as you said, they serve people if they want to serve them. They refuse if they're mistreated. House Elves, by contrast, don't have the same freedom, do interact with people and are forced to punish themselves if they disobey. You couldn't treat a brownie like a house elf or order it around however you wanted. They don't have the same enchantments that Random mentioned above. > Pippin: > Who are these confused people? > I haven't heard from anyone who finished the book and thought, > gosh, what the world needs is to train/breed a bunch of people to > serve us as House Elves. I think canon shows clearly that although > the idea has attractions, if you could do that, it would be cruel > and unwise. Magpie: I didn't say anything about any hypthothetical "confused" people. I was describing how some people feel about the house elf situation. One can not like the set up of something without thinking anyone else is going to be compelled to go out and recreate it, or not understanding fact and fiction. (Not, of course, that people actually haven't thought it was a good idea to breed and train people to serve us like House Elves in the past.) I think it's perfectly valid for people to feel that it hits a sour note for them, or works against the alleged message of the books. I don't think canon says anything one way or the other about whether it would be cruel or unwise to breed a bunch of people for any particular thing. Montavilla47: But the parts that are cruel, demeaning, and just plain weird are shown to be due to masters who are cruel, demeaning, and just plain weird. When it's Harry who, after an initial discomfort with slave-owning, practices good master behavior, the master/slave relationship is okay. Therefore, in order to come away with the message that slavery is bad, you need to come into the story with that idea. And say to yourself, "Well, it's all very good that Harry is responsible and kind, but we know that isn the way that slavery really works." Magpie: Yes. I don't see why it's considered even surprising that some people don't particularly like this particular side to canon or are reminded of certain human ideas about "ruling classes" or slavery by it. Even in this thread I'm not getting the feeling that the idea of Harry the slavemaster with Kreacher the slave who loves him now that he's identified him as a worthy master is all that attractive. If nobody had anything to go on but the books I think they'd more get "this is how a master should treat his slave" not "slavery is bad." Even if they noticed that House Elves aren't actually human, the fact that they talk makes them human enough. I don't think the story's going to make somebody go out and force someone to be his/her slave, but I also can't imagine that a person who actually owned slaves, say a person from a place and time where that was common, wouldn't read the story as validating their situation. Geoff: 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? Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar. Magpie: Err...what's to read into it? It's not Harry's having a sandwich that bothers Katie, it's Harry having a slave that he accepts as such. That's not reading anything into it, it's just not particularly liking that aspect of the book's. A cigar's a cigar, a master is a master. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 21:24:04 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:24:04 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > > > > In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the > > > tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. > > > > > > Eggplant > > > > > > ***Katie: > > > > I'm someone who is deeply disturbed by Harry's final remark regarding Kreacher, and I am in no way attempting to be "provocative". I was so shocked by that remark the first time that I read the book, that I was completely taken out of the story by it. The *line* is provocative, IMO. The problem is not that Harry is wondering about a sandwich - the problem is that he expects that Kreacher may bring him one. > > > Geoff: > Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a subversive and questionable meaning in every sentence of the books? > > 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? > > Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar. ***Katie: Well, since I am usually someone who *doesn't* read into every single thing - I think this is something worth noting. I agree with you that sometimes we read too much into things - but in the context of all the other inconsistencies in DH - this, to me, is a big one. As some other people have noted, as I myself did a few weeks back, the House Elf storyline is one that is poorly developed, executed in a half-assed way, and altogether fairly confusing, IMO. I don't really understand what point she JKR was trying to make, but it definitely smacked of anti-slavery to me. Since that is how I saw it, it *was* very disturbing to me to think that after all the sacrifices the House Elves had made, and all the things Kreacher and Dobby had done for Harry, that he would be wondering about Kreacher bringing him a sandwich. It just seemed icky, distasteful. It was a line that jumped off the page at me as entirely out of character for Harry, and it seemed like it contradicted what I saw as an anti-slavery story. Maybe that isn't what JKR meant to do, but she certainly put enough in the books about the wrongness of House Elf enslavement that I feel justified in thinking that was at least one of the purposes of that plot...thus, at the end of that storyline, Harry's sandwich musings seem, at the very least, out of place. At least, that's how I see it. BTW, if Harry had wondered if Molly or Arthur would bring him a sandwich, that would have a totally different connotation. Molly and Arthur do not call Harry *master*, nor are they members of a subserviant race. Furthermore, Harry sees them as parental figures, who might think to bring one of their *children* a sandwich after a traumatic day, especially after losing Fred. That would be very different than Harry wondering about his servant bringing him one...very different. Besides, I thought we all had fun discussing the books, good and bad, and this, IMO, is not a shining moment. I think it's worth discussion. Just my .02, Katie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 21:25:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:25:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178636 Dana wrote: > > Brownies are literally elves of the house and they serve the inhabitants of that house as long as they find these inhabitants agreeable enough to serve, if not well the inhabitants will do better to move. > What I was trying to say with pointing out the mythological background the house-elves are based on is that I do not think that JKR probably ever thought about the comparison people would make to slavery because house-elf servitude is part of almost all elf-like creatures in mythology and this part is not what she made up herself, she just personified the concept. Carol responds: I agree with you regarding House-elves as brownies, creatures from folklore that JKR borrowed and altered for her own purposes. (I think there's a touch of Gollum in the House-Elves, too, but that's neither here not there.) > Dana: > I do not look at what Harry wants but what Kreacher would have liked. Carol: Exactly what I think, tooo, only it's Hermione, not Harry, who's trying to impose unwanted freedom on the House-Elves. It seems to me that Harry has finally figured out how to treat a House-Elf other than Dobby, and both he and Kreacher are happy as a result (or would be if Yaxley's glimpse of 12 GP hadn't made it impossible to continue using the house as a hideout). That relationship is resumed at the end of the book with the sandwich thought (which is not a remark, despite the title of this thread, since Harry isn't speaking aloud). Dana: > And it is not even because I like Kreacher's story arc because Kreacher's tale totally put me off; give the creature some bling bling and he will kiss your insert whatever comes to mind forever. Carol responds: Interesting that you and I would react so differently here when we seem to share a similar view of House-Elves. For me, what mattered was not the worthless fake locket (which Kreacher values because it belonged to Master Regulus) but Harry's changed view of both Regulus (whom he now recognizes as a hero and an ally, though dead) and of Kreacher himself (who only wants to serve his dead master). Once Kreacher realizes that Harry, like Regulus, wants the stolen locket destroyed (so Mater Regulus will not have died in vain, as Harry rather disingenuously phrases it), Kreacher wants to help him. The fake locket, which Harry no longer needs and gives to Kreacher as a keepsake, a memento of Master Regulus, is "overkill, mate." The gift reduces Kreacher to hysterical tears, not because of its beauty or glitter or monetary value (I'm not quite sure what "bling" means), but because of its connection with the master who sacrificed his life for a House-Elf. I found the whole Kreacher/Regulus story extremely moving, myself, and I loved Kreacher's rallying cry, fighting in the name of "brave Regulus, champion of House-Elves"--Kreacher's true master, as I read it, with "Master Harry" being an acceptable substitute because he acknowledged and respected Regulus's sacrifice (and understood, thanks to Hermione, that House-Elves don't think like human beings--now if Hermione would just realize that they don't want freedom. . .). Dana: > Maybe it is just me imagining that the difference was predominantly in their personality that gives me the feel that Kreacher actually would not want to be set free in the way Dobby did but sure that should not be a reason for Harry to not even offer it to Kreacher. Carol: I agree with you here. Dobby was an anomaly. Kreacher was proud to serve the Black family and had excellent reason to love, almost worship, Regulus. The last thing he wants is to be set free now that "Master Harry" understands him and has helped him to destroy the locket as Regulus ordered him to do. Kreacher will stay at Hogwarts if he has to in order to escape DEs or if he's ordered to do so, but I'm sure he'd much rather return to the Black family home, which is the only home he has ever known. The last thing he wants is to be freed--disgraced, unemployed and unemployable, given clothes but no home and no protection. Harry has the moral obligation of noblesse oblige, as Magpie said, though she apparently doesn't approve of the concept--the duty of those in power (in this case wizards who own House-Elves) to behave responsibly, honorably, and generously to those who are below them in rank or power, including servants. It would be cruel to deprive the aged and eccentric Kreacher of kind treatment, a home, and the opportunity to serve wizards that gives House-Elves so much pleasure (as we see with the reformed Kreacher after Harry gives him the locket). > Dana: > If house-elves want to serve wizards then I see no objection to Harry having a house-elf as long as Kreacher wants to be Harry's elf. > Carol: Neither do I. There's all the difference in the world between ordering Kreacher to follow Draco, which he didn't want to do, and requesting a sandwich that he would be more than happy to provide (and which would require very little effort on a House-Elf's part). Carol, who sees nothing in canon to support the idea that House-Elves want to be free and everything to indicate their pleasure in serving a kind master (as even the "free" Dobby does--he simply chooses whom he wants to serve) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 22:15:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:15:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > > > > Brownies are literally elves of the house and they serve the > inhabitants of that house as long as they find these inhabitants > agreeable enough to serve, if not well the inhabitants will do better > to move. > > > What I was trying to say with pointing out the mythological > background the house-elves are based on is that I do not think that > JKR probably ever thought about the comparison people would make to > slavery because house-elf servitude is part of almost all elf-like > creatures in mythology and this part is not what she made up herself, > she just personified the concept. lizzyben: Well, except JKR herself calls them slaves & makes a comparison to slavery in real life. She also agrees when someone says that it's a metaphor for racism & slavery. And she says that slavery is an issue that we all feel strong about - presumably, that we all feel strongly that it is a bad thing. I would have been fine w/it if she'd said, no, no, they're just brownies, or house spirits. Or if a HP character had explained things that way. Instead they just say the stuff most slave-owners said in real life - they like being enslaved, they'd be miserable if they were free, etc. etc. > Carol, who sees nothing in canon to support the idea that House-Elves > want to be free and everything to indicate their pleasure in serving a > kind master (as even the "free" Dobby does--he simply chooses whom he > wants to serve) > lizzyben: And if house elves are truly meant to represent slavery, that's a pretty weird message. It agrees with the propaganda and myth of superiority that slaveowners held 200 years ago. And so it fits much better with the... I'll call it "Godfather" interpretation. Harry has been indoctrinated into the mores & values of his slave-holding society, no longer sees the immorality inherent in it, and has assumed his natural entitlement to a position at the top of this hierarchy. He used to see it as a "loathsome pecking order", when he noticed how fake & fawning the golden statues were, but now he just sees that order as natural and right. That's the real arc here, as far as I can tell. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 22:16:25 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:16:25 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178638 > > ***Katie: > > > > I'm someone who is deeply disturbed by Harry's final remark regarding > > Kreacher, and I am in no way attempting to be "provocative". I was so > > shocked by that remark the first time that I read the book, that I was > > completely taken out of the story by it. The *line* is provocative, IMO. > > > > > > The problem is not that Harry is wondering about a sandwich - the > > problem is that he expects that Kreacher may bring him one. > > Geoff: > Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a subversive and questionable meaning > in every sentence of the books? > Annemehr: Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly not "questionable," but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. That's how finely crafted literature is written. And if a story is not so finely crafted, then each sentence will be thoroughly critiqued, you can be sure. Geoff: > 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? > Annemehr: Well, that's a game we could play, certainly. The hypothetical Molly discussion would have definite similarities to the Kreacher one, I'd wager. Maybe we'll do that after we're done picking the actual series apart. ;) Geoff: > Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar. > Annemehr: The line in question is badly placed if it's "just a cigar." But, I don't agree that it is. It's an affirmation that Harry's new relationship with Kreacher, begun when hiding out at 12 Grimmauld Place, was not just wartime pragmatism, but rather the way it's going to be. Its prominence comes not only from its location in the final book, but by sitting atop a whole mountain of canon given in GoF, OoP, and DH. It's fairly impossible to ignore. So, it gets a thread. As it should, IMO. Annemehr From afn01288 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 22:16:44 2007 From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:16:44 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178639 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > > > > In the insatiable desire to be provocative some have found yet another > > way to demonize Harry; apparently even after going through the > > tortures of the damned to save the world asking for a sandwich as a > > reward is being unforgivably selfish. 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. > > > > It's good to be provocative but if you push it too far you get silly. > > > > Eggplant > > then Katie rplied: > > I'm someone who is deeply disturbed by Harry's final remark regarding > Kreacher, and I am in no way attempting to be "provocative". I was so > shocked by that remark the first time that I read the book, that I was > completely taken out of the story by it. The *line* is provocative, IMO. afn: The sandwich part was provocative and stood out, but what really stood out for me was that after a year of not being a Hogwarts student, Harry seemed to expect his old bed to be waiting for him. Since he wasn't enrolled that year, his old bed may have been re- assigned to someone else. 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? Maybe classmates and old teachers were reluctant not to save a place for him or make it a sort of monument, this doesn't seem very practical. So much has been made (and is interesting) about Kreacher and the sandwich after the Battle of Hogwarts, but the idea Harry still had a place in his former dormitory is what struck me. Am I missing something here? afn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 23:03:27 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:03:27 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178640 "prep0strus" wrote: > I just can't figure out why she bothered > to include the storyline - even at its > best, it was annoying I profoundly disagree! I believe the house elf sub thread is one of the (but adamantly not the only) things that elevates Rowling's story from being just a very entertaining tale into being a work of art. And if creating something that enables millions, perhaps billions, of people to explore an imaginary world is not a work of art then what the hell is? A bunch of nude people cavorting on the ceiling of some chapel in Italy depicting a very silly story? I think not. Eggplant From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 23:11:57 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:11:57 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178641 > I profoundly disagree! I believe the house elf sub thread is one of > the (but adamantly not the only) things that elevates Rowling's story > from being just a very entertaining tale into being a work of art. And > if creating something that enables millions, perhaps billions, of > people to explore an imaginary world is not a work of art then what > the hell is? A bunch of nude people cavorting on the ceiling of some > chapel in Italy depicting a very silly story? I think not. > > Eggplant > Prep0strus: Ok, then that's a good question - what about the storyline worked for you? I think her world is full of depth and complexity without this storyline. Not quite sure where you're going w/ the whole art analogy, but I think that in the end, the elf storyline detracts rather than adds to her world, because in the end it seems like something she either made a mistake with or forgot about. Originally, it appeared to be a very obvious treatise on slavery (much as the pureblood storyline was an obvious analogy for nazis), which was fine. We got our adorable sidekick Dobby, longing for freedom, which is granted by Harry. Then our moral center, Hermione, has learned something about the world and tries to change it for the better, helping wizards and elves alike see how things could be different. Then, for several books, no one cares all that much. Often people say random things alluding to treating house elves well, and some characters learn that maybe it should matter if they live or die. Oh, and our one free house elf dies heroically saving our hero. Meanwhile, our moral center, Hermione, appears to give up, without actually learning anything or conceding anything. And the rest of the world, wizards and elves alike, continue to not care. I'm not going to argue with your one point, which seems to be that 'books are art' - I'm just not sure how it is that this particular storyline is what makes this series art, or what in this storyline precisely was the enjoyable part. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 29 23:22:52 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:22:52 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178642 "afn01288" wrote: > The idea Harry still had a place > in his former dormitory is what > struck me. Am I missing something here? So the idea that Harry, the man who had just saved the entire world, thought he still had a place at Hogwarts seems strange to you. To answer your question, yes I believe you are missing something here. Eggplant From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Oct 29 23:41:34 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:41:34 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > So the idea that Harry, the man who had just saved the entire world, > thought he still had a place at Hogwarts seems strange to you. To > answer your question, yes I believe you are missing something here. Mus had thought about the same quibble: For me, the issue wasn't about whether Harry didn't deserve to have a decent night's rest in Hogwart's after saving the world - it was a purely practical one: he hasn't been there throughout Year 7, and he only ever had a place in the dormitory because he was a boarder at the school. When it was clear that he wasn't coming back, why should a place be kept for him by the school administration? It's a minor point for me, though, because there doesn't seem to be anything in canon* to indicate that when you move from one year to another, you move to a different dormitory (unlike a lot of school stories) - by assumption, a given room is allocated to First Years once it's been vacated by departing Seventh Years. So an empty bed (or two - Ron's would be empty too) doesn't seem too problematical. *I'm open to correction from canon on this, of course. Mus, for whom it's not about the sandwich. Tea and biscuits, a nice poached egg on toast or filet mignon would have been equally problematical. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 29 23:45:51 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:45:51 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: Geoff: > > Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a subversive and questionable > meaning > > in every sentence of the books? Annemehr: > Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly > not "questionable," but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a > purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. That's how finely > crafted literature is written. And if a story is not so finely > crafted, then each sentence will be thoroughly critiqued, you can be > sure. Geoff: Perhaps I am just na?ve and thick. I didn't read LOTR or Narnia or the HP books to thoroughly critique each sentence and I bet that even someone as meticulous as JRRT didn't debate why every sentence was there. That would be pedantry gone mad.... Personally - shock, horror - I actually read them to enjoy them. One of the things which has put me off reading many of the current threads is that the friendliness and sociability of the group has declined ever since the appearance of HBP. There are some members of the group who have set out their own views - which is their right - but have dragged threads on and on because other contributors have dared to disagree with them and the exchange of ideas has sometimes ceased to be amicable and become belligerent and confrontational. At the moment, we seem to have a wave of anti-JKR sentiments. Nothing she has written seems to please certain people and DH is written off as a disaster. Having read the last book three times, I am reasonably happy with it. There are certain scenes and topics about which I am not over the moon, but I didn't expect that my expectations would coincide absolutely with the author's thoughts. I am still glad to have entered the Potterverse and feel that I can identify with Harry in his teen years. > Geoff: > > > Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar. > > > > Annemehr: > > The line in question is badly placed if it's "just a cigar." But, I > don't agree that it is. It's an affirmation that Harry's new > relationship with Kreacher, begun when hiding out at 12 Grimmauld > Place, was not just wartime pragmatism, but rather the way it's going > to be. Its prominence comes not only from its location in the final > book, but by sitting atop a whole mountain of canon given in GoF, > OoP, and DH. It's fairly impossible to ignore. Geoff: Again, being just a simple retired Maths and Computing teacher not skilled in seeking deep esoteric meaning in each word, I did ignore it. To me, it was just an indicator of the fact that, after having hated Kreacher through OOTP and HBP, Harry was reminding himself that he had crafted a new relationship with Kreacher, which had given the latter something of a new lease of life. Katie: > Besides, I thought we all had fun discussing the books, good and bad, > and this, IMO, is not a shining moment. I think it's worth > discussion. Just my .02, Katie" Geoff: As I implied earlier in this thread, there was a time when we had fun discussing the books, but I fear the "good" seems to have been lost in the present atmosphere of JKR-bashing. Maybe it's not a shining moment, but it just seems to me to adequately sum up Harry's unspoken wish for a little peace and normality after all he's been through in the last seven and more years. He's tired and drained and trying to grab a llittle quality time away from the celebrations; let's give him a little leeway. From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 23:53:11 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich Message-ID: <872989.12389.qm@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178645 It's a minor point for me, though, because there doesn't seem to be anything in canon* to indicate that when you move from one year to another, you move to a different dormitory (unlike a lot of school stories) - by assumption, a given room is allocated to First Years once it's been vacated by departing Seventh Years. So an empty bed (or two - Ron's would be empty too) doesn't seem too problematical. Pam, for whom nothing is too small, comments: Remembering the amount of death there had just been at Hogwarts, coupled with the fact that there were no Muggle-borns at Hogwarts anymore (I'm not certain if half-bloods were still allowed to go) it seems to me there would be many fewer students at Hogwarts that year. Therefore, it is entirely plausable that there were many empty beds, Harry's among them. I can imagine that there would be no boy who would want to be caught sleeping in the bed that had been Harry's, for fear of looking like he was showing some small support of Harry to the new administration, and for fear of flaunting a belief that Harry was dead or run off to Harry's supporters in that room. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 30 00:09:38 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:09:38 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178646 > Geoff: > Perhaps I am just na?ve and thick. > I didn't read LOTR or Narnia or the HP books to thoroughly > critique each sentence and I bet that even someone as > meticulous as JRRT didn't debate why every sentence was > there. That would be pedantry gone mad.... > Personally - shock, horror - I actually read them to enjoy > them. Celoneth: It's just that that statement and certain others seem to read as OOC at the end of DH. The sandwich & Harry's Crucio jumped out of me as being really odd and out of place with what I've been reading of Harry for the last 6 3/4 books and out of place with the general tones and themes of the book. I don't read the books with such scrutiny to jump on every word, but when certain things appear like this I notice it and it takes away from my reading by having to pause and think why it's there. As far as the house-elves go, Harry's never shown much interest in house-elf rights, but at the same time has been kind to the house-elves that he encounters. He treats house-elves as if they were human - not really understanding their need to serve and being as mad at Kreacher as he would a witch or wizard that betrayed Sirius in HBP. He goes from this, to at least an implied feeling like he's accepting the status-quo and seeing Kreacher as a house-elf is seen in the WW w/o any reason for there to be to change his mind about it. Geoff: > Maybe it's not a shining moment, but it just seems to me to > adequately sum up Harry's unspoken wish for a little peace > and normality after all he's been through in the last seven > and more years. He's tired and drained and trying to grab a > little quality time away from the celebrations; let's give > him a little leeway. Celoneth: I don't see it as normalty, it seems OOC for him - someone who's always been extremely reluctant for others to do stuff for him. A wish for peace and rest and a sandwich - sure, I get that - he deserves that and much more - I just don't understand why Kreacher is brought into it. Celoneth From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 01:13:06 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:13:06 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47268522.8030703@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178647 Geoff Bannister: I bet that even someone as meticulous as JRRT didn't debate > why every sentence was there. Apparently you haven't read the History of Middle Earth; yeah, he pretty much did. And then spent a lot of time revising and correcting the published editions afterward -- right down to the implications of his (then-novel) spelling of "dwarves", ranting at the publisher for changing "bride-price" to "bride-piece" and spending countless days plotting the movements of his characters down to the hour. Gave new meaning to the word "meticulous". You may not have read Tolkien to criticize every sentence, but many folk do (just try reading the debates over balrogs' wings), and Tolkien's fanatical attention to detail is part of the reason LoTR is a classic in ways HP can never hope to be. Tolkien's universe hangs together with a consistency the Potterverse long ago gave up any hope of claiming. > Personally - shock, horror - I actually read them to enjoy them. Ditto. And part of what makes Tolkien so much more enjoyable than Rowling is precisely that there are no glaring inconsistencies that leap up to knock you out-of-story. Even those who do choose to comb through Tolkien at the microscopic level (*because* they so enjoy the story) don't get mired down in OOC moments, deus-ex-machinas, mcguffins, mind-numbingly twisted logic regarding elder-wands or math errors (nor has anyone ever accused Sauron of being an idiot). Because they're not to be found in Tolkien, and folk have been picking him apart for over fifty years. DH, on the other hand, was being ripped to shreds consistency-wise withins days of publication. Nor did Tolkien run around giving interviews while getting facts about his own universe wrong. Yeah, Rowling could have done with a bit more attention to detail. > Nothing she has written seems to please certain people and > DH is written off as a disaster. I can only speak for myself, but I found the early books extremely enjoyable, which is why I stuck with the series. I found OOP a slight let-down, but by the middle of HBP things had begun spiraling out of control. And yeah, DH *was* pretty much a disaster. > I didn't expect that my expectations would coincide absolutely > with the author's thoughts. It's not so much about expectations -- at least if you mean specific ideas about plot- and character-development. I, for one, had none (well, only one). I was willing to let JKR take the story and characters wherever she wanted to go. It wasn't the direction of travel that bothered me, but the quality of the ride. And even though in the end I got my one wish, it turned out to be one of those careful-what-you-ask-for moments. --CJ From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Oct 30 01:13:58 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:13:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47268556.7060003@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 178648 prep0strus wrote: > Prep0strus: > > But by making Dobby want not just to be treated well, but to have > freedom and payment, Does he? Did he express any interest in freedom or payment before Harry got him freed? He may see no middle ground between being free and paid, and being abused by the Malfoys, and sees the former as the lesser of two evils? --Random832 From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 30 01:17:55 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:17:55 EDT Subject: WHOSE DD is he? (Was: Re: Should JKR shut up? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178649 CJ: > HP, the WW, DD -- they're all part of a fictional creation which > doesn't exist outside the pages of the books. Rowena: > It would perhaps be more accurate to say they don't exist > outside JKR's imagination. CJ: Hmm ... but this IS the problem, isn't it? If I say the characters are "real" or they "exist" what I mean is, of course, that they "exist" within MY imagination. My imagination has taken the words on the pages of a book, constructed the image of an individual in my mind, and then filled in the blanks *as my imagination saw fit*. In that sense, then, there are as many Dumbledores as JKR has readers, none of them the same -- and most particularly, none of them like the DD of JKR's imagination, except as they might happen to overlap through the words of JKR's book. And it is *those* characters -- the characters of *my* imagination -- that I fell in love with (or learned to loathe), that kept me spellbound and drew me back again for page after page after book after book. It is *not* the Dumbledore of JKR's creation that enraptured me -- it is the Dumbledore of *mine*. Julie: I am completely with you so far. We each create our own individual Harry Potter universe, and the way we interpret the characters, the places, the actions, etc in the books is that universe's construct. JKR's interpretation of the characters will never exactly match anyone else's, despite her being the original creator. CW: And this is why JKR is not only wrong but two parts offensive when she says, "He is my character. He is what he is." 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. Julie: Here I disagree, because in at least one sense--the legal sense--Dumbledore IS JKR's character. She owns the copyright, and no one else can recreate Dumbledore in any manner for publication or profit without her consent (except Warner, which has the rights to the movie version of Dumbledore). And I believe this is exactly what JKR is referring to, no doubt a bit defensively (I would be). She created--and technically she owns--the character, so the idea that she should shut up about the character may have struck her as a bit "offensive." CJ: What her answer *should* have been was, "Look -- it's not *my* DD you care about -- he's not the one you fell in love with. It's the DD that exists within *you* that you wish to get to know better. And since I can't possibly know as much about your DD as you do, only you can answer the question. The question is not, 'Is DD gay?' but, 'Is *your* DD -- the one you created, the one you spent the last ten years getting to know -- is *that* DD gay?'" That's the kind of respect JKR's readers deserve. Julie: I understand what you are saying, and your imagined quote above is quite wise and perceptive (though I'd cut out "the one you created" bit if I was the author, because I should get *something* for all that work ;-). I believe Douglas Adams was quoted saying something similar about his characters. I personally think JKR initially gave the fans what she believed they *wanted* when she answered that question, given the number of fans who've pestered her not only for clues to future books over and over but who ate up every tidbit about character backstories and whatnot she offered, even when those tidbits were from her own background notes and would never be in the books. (For instance, how many fans *didn't* accept the background facts about Dean Thomas's upbringing that JKR supplied but which never made it into the books? My recall is that no one on any list I read protested learning that information, nor demanded JKR refrain from offering such extraneous tidbits.) So where did she ever get the idea that her fans (separate from Douglas Adams fans) wanted to know any little tidbit she'd be willing to share? And how should she have been able to separate the easy acceptance of Dean's non-canon backstory facts from the sudden fury that greeted her revelation that Dumbledore is gay? (One could argue the Dean bits were offered before the saga was officially finished, while the Dumbledore factoid came after the saga was complete, but I don't see exactly how that makes a difference, as they are still extraneous facts outside of book canon.) CJ: [Note: it is not my intention to argue that *my* DD was heterosexual (in fact, I had never thought about his sexuality), or that I find the thought of a homosexual DD offensive. DD's sexual orientation is simply a stand-in in the above argument for "Character Trait X", where "X" stands for any character trait not in canon that my imagination has already filled in. By *not* including it in canon, JKR left it to my imagination to fill in, but then comes along after the fact declaring her absolute right to sh**-can *my* DD (or Ron, or Neville) and shove hers down my throat.] Julie: It still amounts to the same thing though, that no one complained about Dean's backstory, or other non-canon (not in the books) facts JKR offered that never made it into the books. So why now? CJ: > A fanfic author (sorry, don't recall who) recently posted in > this list that JKR's statement invalidated her own writings > involving DD descendants. Julie: I'm not sure I agree that any fanfic can be "invalidated' by canon, since fanfic isn't part of canon, and much of it has very little to do with canon anyway! (I'm also kind of curious when the stories were written that were invalidated, as all fanfic written before DH was written with the explicit knowledge that it might become something not consistent with canon once DH was published.) In any case, I can see a fanfic author being irritated about that, but I've always thought those who write HP fanfic (I haven't done so yet, though I might in the future) are lucky that JKR is so accepting of them playing in her universe, so to speak. And before someone says she can't control that aspect, that is not true. If an author does not want fanfic based on their work posted online, it will be removed, unless it is very well hidden. Try and find fanfic based on works by Anne Rice, Anne McCaffrey, Jasper Fforde, as well as a host of others. While at this point it would be very hard for JKR to change her stance on fanfic, as there is so much HP fanfic on the Internet, she could make it much harder to share it. Other authors have certainly done so. IMO, JKR has been pretty accomodating to fans in almost every way. 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. Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Oct 30 01:19:44 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:19:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178650 On 2007, Oct 29, , at 16:09, slytherin_jenn wrote: > Celoneth: > I don't see it as normalty, it seems OOC for him - someone who's > always been extremely reluctant for others to do stuff for him. > A wish for peace and rest and a sandwich - sure, I get that - > he deserves that and much more - I just don't understand why > Kreacher is brought into it. > > Celoneth If Dobby were still alive, would it make more sense to you? Dobby would be ecstatic to serve Harry in that minor way. This is Hogwarts, where the only way Harry knows to get a sandwich is to either go down to the kitchens himself (a very unusual undertaking and risking running in to people he doesn't want to see) or asking a house elf to get him one. If he asked any other house elf to get him a sandwich, Dobby would have been hurt. From the time that Harry gave him the fake locket, Kreacher has enjoyed working for Harry and Co. He was overjoyed to be able to fix some of Harry's favorite foods; he cleaned up his appearance; he even seemed in much better mental health. It is my feeling that Kreacher would have taken the request for a sandwich as a validation of his position in Harry's life - it would make him feel honored, rather than put upon. House elves get their feelings of worth from the acts of service they perform, not unlike mothers and many teachers. Money isn't the main reason they do it. And it would give Harry a chance to thank him for the part he played in the Battle of Hogwarts. 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 Tue Oct 30 01:26:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:26:51 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/ Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: 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. Alla: Oh. But you see I would have no problem if Harry would have beat Kreacher into bloody mess, really. Disclaimer, yes, yes, I know christian motives, power of forgiveness, etc. Love the themes very much, still hate Kreacher, cannot help myself. Purely emotional response, I know. And him being nice to Harry did not help much, unfortunately. The picture of Regulus dying for him and Sirius dying because of him IMO is too strong in my mind. The reason why this line sticks out to me is not because I care about Kreacher as character at all, as I said I could care less if I see his head among those many elves. It sticks out to me because Harry IS nice to Kreacher in DH, you know? I mean, again, please do not get me wrong, when I say it sticks out, it is not I am even especially bothered by it, since I think that Harry is much nicer to Kreacher than he deserves in my opinion. I just find strange that Harry is content with having a house elf, I guess. As I said, for all the reasons stated upthread, I do not think that means that JKR abandoned the theme or anything. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 01:38:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:38:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178652 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 ------------------------------------- Alla: Many many many thanks to lovely and talented Zara, who did the red pen thing with the summary in a twinkle of time and who added two questions. This chapter discussion is prepared in a REALLY short period of time as an emergency substitution, so please do not judge too harshly, guys. CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pyjamas The Trio is staying at the Burrow. Harry is struggling with the guilt over Mad Eye's death. Molly is in charge of preparations for the wedding and 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 Ron also tells Harry that she tried to find out what exactly Dumbledore wanted them to do. Indeed, Molly tries to find out from Harry as well, Harry finds it hard to resist her questioning especially when he notices that her eyes are the same shade of brown as Ginny's. He is not saying anything nevertheless. Other order members often come for dinner to Burrow, Harry learns that the Burrow is now the Order's Headquarters instead of Grimmauld Place, since all people whom Dumbledore told the secret of its location have now become the Secret Keepers in turn and it greatly dilutes the power of the Secret Keeper charm. Arthur also tells Harry about the atmosphere in the Ministry. That Scrimgeour is shut up in his office for days and there are nasty rumors going around about people who disappeared. Ministry employees are terrified and Arthur does not believe that the Muggle studies teacher resigned. In between changing sheets, feeding chickens and doing other chores, Harry, Ron and Hermione are still trying to plan their trip. Hermione is trying to choose which books she will take with her and which books she will not. Harry and Ron notice the book "The Darkest Secrets of the Dark Art" and they are surprised where Hermione got this book. She explains that right after DD's funeral she Accioed Horcrux related books of his study. Harry and Ron are suitably amazed. Hermione shares some details about Horcrux creation with Ron and Harry that she learned from this book. She also tells them that it is possible to pull your soul back together, if one feels remorse about it, but that this is very painful and it can destroy the wizard, therefore she does not see Voldemort attempting to do it. Harry tries to talk Hermione and Ron out of coming with him one more time. He wants to make sure that they thought it out. Ron and Hermione think that they thought it out in great detail and show him what they did. Ron demonstrates the Ghoul, who is supposed to play Ron's part, while he is away. Hermione tells Harry about modifying her parents' memories and moving them to Australia. Harry is suitably impressed and touched. The chapter ends with Molly's interrupting another planning session and asking Harry about whom he wants to see at his birthday and Harry feeling remorse about causing Molly's pain. 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in this chapter? 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be dead? If not, why did he argue that? 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?. 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you think of the sacrifices they are making? 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? 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the wedding? 8. Insert your question here. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 01:47:50 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:47:50 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178653 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178606 > >>Magpie: > > That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse > > oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by > > House Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave > > owner." > >>Carol: > And within the context of the WW, there's nothing wrong with that. > Betsy Hp: But the reader isn't coming to the series as a blank slate. JKR *has* to realize the kind of loaded word "slave" is. And she's no stranger to using our RW context to add depth to story (ie Nazis = Death Eaters). I think it's like the movie "Goldfinger" where there's a scene where James Bond smacks a woman on the ass to send her on her way because he and another male character are about to have "man talk". At the time the movie was made, this made Bond seem manly and cool. But if a movie director *today* chose to have his hero do the same thing, even if it took place in that earlier era, he or she would recognize that they were having their hero do something that would cause him to be judged a lot more harshly. Because RW context would be brought to bare. And then of course, there's the added difficulty of Dobby. > >>Carol: > You can't free a House-Elf without disgracing him and making him > miserable. > Betsy Hp: And yet, our first introduction to House Elves was an elf that yearned for his freedom and adored Harry for arranging it for him. So even within the context of the books, JKR set up slavery as a not very good word. > >>Lealess: > > > > Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion were it not for > > Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, along with > > Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves. So tell > > me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all? It > > seemed to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up > > being anything but. > >>lizzyben: > I don't know, but it does seem like JKR originally intended to show > that the house-elf slavery was a bad thing & then changed her mind > later on. > > She calls the house elves "slaves", and states that the house-elves > represent the issue of slavery in the real world. > > Now Harry doesn't want to free elves, he wants them to serve him. > And all was well. > > I can't figure out if she was being dishonest about her message in > the earlier quotes, if she totally changed her mind about the > direction of the series, or is she honestly doesn't see the > disconnect between her statements and the ultimate messages > contained in the novel. Betsy Hp: I think JKR was working through some various issues through her writing of this series. And I think she got... maybe tired, maybe scared? Anyway, I've never seen a book sweep its shadow characters under the carpet so firmly and so quickly. I think the House Elf slavery issue was an innocent by-stander in some ways. Since JKR decided to embrace the close-minded, protectionism of the WW, all of its traditions had to be upheld. Therefore the House Elves remained slaves, the Centaurs remained in the forest, the Giants remained banned, and the Slytherins remained in the dungeons. Harry changed nothing; he just took his place amongst the elite. Betsy Hp From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 30 01:48:37 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:48:37 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178654 Laura: > If Dobby were still alive, would it make more sense to you? > Dobby would be ecstatic to serve Harry in that minor way. > This is Hogwarts, where the only way Harry knows to get a > sandwich is to either go down to the kitchens himself (a very > unusual undertaking and risking running in to people he > doesn't want to see) or asking a house elf to get him one. If > he asked any other house elf to get him a sandwich, Dobby > would have been hurt. Celoneth: No, it wouldn't have made sense to me - my problem isn't the house-elves, its Harry's behaviour. I wouldn't expect Harry to honour a house-elf by having him serve him, even if that would be the highest compliment(which I think it would be). Harry's never really understood, tried to understand or been around house-elves to understand their nature. He treats them mostly like he does human beings - correct or not, that's how he acts, why all of a sudden, exhausted and after major battle with many lives lost, would he have grand revelations about house-elf nature? Plus, add to this Harry's constant reluctance to have anyone help him. I just don't think it makes sense for his character to call on a specific house-elf and have him serve him, or even think it - doesn't seem to be the time or place for it - regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Celoneth From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 02:02:46 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:02:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178655 Goddlefrood enters the fray while thanking Alla for putting this Chapter discussion together in short shrift. The selected questions: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? Goddlefrood: It seemed relatively consistent with her previous attitude towards the trio. Her keeping a beady eye on them and also ensuring, or trying to, that they did not have time together to plan and scheme reminded me of her manner towards them in OotP during the Grimmaud Place sojourn. Having had in my youth a close family friend whom we called Aunt, but who actually was not, who acted very much like Molly, or rather Molly acted rather like her; this non-Aunt was the person who invariably came to mind any time Molly came on the scene. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? Goddlefrood: Wishful thinking I believe. The trio were incredulous at Mad-Eye's demise, Ron particularly so. Due to that, IMO, he forlornly argued that Mad-Eye was alive. > 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?. Goddlefrood: It was consistent with what was in the books, although it was not consistemt with what had been at Ms. Rowling's site relative to Secret Keepers. Just another reason for disregarding whatever's outside the books as far as I'm concerned. What was in the books on Secret Keepers was not much, so any explanation would have fitted if you disregard the site information. > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? Goddlefrood: It did, didn't it? Hence his heightened anger and tetchiness. It was the influence of the locket that drove Ron to storm off and it was also apt that he was the one to destroy it by having his finger severed, er, stabbing the locket, later in the book. > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? Goddlefrood: Not too much, it's no more nor less than one would expect from Harry's two greatest friends. As there isn't an opposite to a human being, except for an inside out human being, I'll leave question 6. > 8. Insert your question here. Goddlefrood: Do you really think the ghoul in pajamas really convinced anyone that it was Ron? From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Oct 30 02:14:52 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:14:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D3997AF-6F8C-41E5-AE5D-C220A3696CC8@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 178656 On 2007, Oct 29, , at 17:38, dumbledore11214 wrote: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? I was annoyed at Molly's behavior. She knows that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are determined to go on their quest. If she were thinking logically, she would reason that giving them a chance to prepare thoroughly would keep them safer than trying to hinder them at every turn. Perhaps she should have made them long-lasting sandwiches instead. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? It seemed like wishful thinking to me. And it seems like a typical reaction to death. Of the times I remember when people I have known died, I remember that it really helped me to see the body at the funeral services. That helped to make it more real. Since, in this case, there was no body, it is tempting to think that it didn't happen. > 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? I guess I am never bothered about the particulars of how these types of charms work. It seems to me they work as JKR wants them to work in connection with the story. I accept them as that and am content not to explore that avenue further. > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? I like the similarities here. But the possessions seem to be rather different in some respects. I am still a bit confused about the different types of possession - Ginny actually lost a sense of self, which I didn't see in Ron or in Harry when VM briefly possessed him, nor did we see it the other way around when Harry possessed the snake. The snake was still able to act and I doubt that Harry would have been able to prevent it. > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? Scary. I think they are both scared, but determined - as is Harry. This is another reason I wish Molly had let them talk more. They really needed more time to talk things out BEFORE it got too chaotic. > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > wedding? Like Harry, I probably would have started in Godric's Hollow - just because he has now heard so many interconnecting things about it. > 8. Insert your question here. Why did Hermione choose Tottenam Court Road? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 02:15:01 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:15:01 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178657 Celoneth: No, it wouldn't have made sense to me - my problem isn't the house-elves, its Harry's behaviour. I wouldn't expect Harry to honour a house-elf by having him serve him, even if that would be the highest compliment(which I think it would be). Harry's never really understood, tried to understand or been around house-elves to understand their nature. He treats them mostly like he does human beings - correct or not, that's how he acts, why all of a sudden, exhausted and after major battle with many lives lost, would he have grand revelations about house-elf nature? Plus, add to this Harry's constant reluctance to have anyone help him. I just don't think it makes sense for his character to call on a specific house-elf and have him serve him, or even think it - doesn't seem to be the time or place for it - regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Celoneth Tiffany: I had issues with Harry's behavior also & it's rare for me to criticize a protagontist's behavior in a novel. If you don't understand the house-elves, that's all fine with me because there's more than enough time to learn about them, but be dignified in the way you behave around them. Harry's also been very reluctant when someone else has tried to help him out. I don't dislike his character at all, but wish that Harry would make some smarter decisions at times. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Oct 30 02:21:59 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:21:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178658 On 2007, Oct 29, , at 17:48, slytherin_jenn wrote: > Laura: >> If Dobby were still alive, would it make more sense to you? >> Dobby would be ecstatic to serve Harry in that minor way. >> This is Hogwarts, where the only way Harry knows to get a >> sandwich is to either go down to the kitchens himself (a very >> unusual undertaking and risking running in to people he >> doesn't want to see) or asking a house elf to get him one. If >> he asked any other house elf to get him a sandwich, Dobby >> would have been hurt. > > Celoneth: > No, it wouldn't have made sense to me - my problem isn't the > house-elves, its Harry's behaviour. I wouldn't expect Harry to honour > a house-elf by having him serve him, even if that would be the highest > compliment(which I think it would be). Harry's never really > understood, tried to understand or been around house-elves to > understand their nature. He treats them mostly like he does human > beings - correct or not, that's how he acts, why all of a sudden, > exhausted and after major battle with many lives lost, would he have > grand revelations about house-elf nature? I don't think it takes any grand revelations about house elves' natures. Harry is hungry. House elves fix food at Hogwarts. Kreacher is at Hogwarts. Kreacher can fix good food for Harry. Harry is hungry and tired. He wonders if Kreacher could fix him a sandwich. To me, it is that simple. > Plus, add to this Harry's > constant reluctance to have anyone help him. As far as food goes, Harry has pretty much ALWAYS let others help him (at least in the Wizarding World). Does he cook on the grand camping trip? Does he cook at the Burrow? The only place we saw him cook was at 4 Privet Drive, IIRC. > I just don't think it > makes sense for his character to call on a specific house-elf and have > him serve him, or even think it - doesn't seem to be the time or > place for it - regardless of whether it's right or wrong. > Celoneth How do you think would have been in character for him to get food at that point? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stephab67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 02:11:39 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:11:39 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178659 Eggplant: > > I profoundly disagree! I believe the house elf sub thread is > > one of the (but adamantly not the only) things that elevates > > Rowling's story from being just a very entertaining tale into > > being a work of art. > Prep0strus: > Originally, it appeared to be a very obvious treatise on > slavery (much as the pureblood storyline was an obvious > analogy for nazis), which was fine. We got our adorable > sidekick Dobby, longing for freedom, which is granted by > Harry. Then our moral center, Hermione, has learned something > about the world and tries to change it for the better, helping > wizards and elves alike see how things could be different. Steph: Part of the problem here is that, with the exception of the Epilogue, which is just a small snapshot of the future, we actually don't know what happened to the house elves after Voldemort's defeat. Did Hermione go on to help free them? Maybe she did. Given that there was so much else going on in the WW at the time, freeing the house-elves was probably fairly low on the priorities list. Getting rid of Voldemort, the guy who was the biggest proponent of racism in the WW, was. For all we know, all the house-elves were freed, and the goblins got wands. I might have mentioned this in another thread, but we have to remember that JKR wrote the house-elves as NOT wanting to be freed, and in fact, it was seen by most of them to be a dishonorable situation (see Winky - she considered it to be akin to being fired). I didn't read this to mean that she thought that they SHOULDN'T be freed, just that they'd been slaves for so long (maybe forever?) that it wasn't a situation they had even considered and therefore was completely out of their frame of reference. They were mostly concerned with being treated well and respected by their masters. This is what the discussions the characters had about the house-elves were primarily about. Hermione was our stand-in (and I'm going to step out on a limb to say JKR's as well): the house-elves are slaves, and anything less than freeing them and paying them for their work is unacceptable. Harry is oddly oblivious to the situation, which is strange because he grew up in the Muggle world, where slavery is considered to be utterly morally wrong. His only opinions of house elves come from Dobby and Kreacher. Ron, not really ever having a house-elf serve him until he gets to Hogwarts, is somewhere in the middle: he thinks they should be treated well, but also thinks they want to be slaves. I don't really think Hermione changed her mind about freeing the elves, I think she just might have realized that it would take a lot of education on a lot of people's parts to get the ELVES to realize that they shouldn't be slaves. Ron seems to have made the biggest leap as he realizes that it's morally wrong to ask them to die for the people who own them (and gets his snog out of Hermione). Harry, I think, just really wants a sandwich and probably wasn't thinking of the moral implications of asking Kreacher to get him one after what he'd just been through. Not saying it's right, I'm just sayin'. Lealess wrote: It seemed to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up being anything but. Steph: Well, I think that's going a bit too far in the opposite direction. I'm with those who think that the writing was a bit sloppy in this storyline, but I don't think that JKR was being nefarious on this point, trying to send a message that slavery is OK, after spending seven books telling people that racism is bad. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 30 02:28:37 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:28:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178660 Potioncat; Nice summary and questions, Alla. I'll address them tomorrow, but here's one I've thought about a little. > Goddlefrood:> > Do you really think the ghoul in pajamas really convinced anyone > that it was Ron? Potioncat: Did anyone come to check? For that matter, how did Ginny get away with not coming back at Easter? One would assume that Headmaster Snape would have to notify the proper authorities that a student had not arrived at school. Or, perhaps, no one asked. Maybe Snape sent a memo to his Heads requiring a report on any truant students. We all know how seriously McGonagall takes memos--- particularly if they are written on pink paper. Potioncat, who really does wonder if Snape let anyone know about missing students, or if he kept that his secret. From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 03:11:26 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:11:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F2DB573A84C428DA8CF5FC259E1A1A0@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178661 Panhandle: A couple of points lead to me think Harry's bed is there. First, based on my reading of the books, the students room with their classmates of the same gender year after year. And, after throwing out all the muggle born students, I can't imagine there are more 7th year male Gryffindors than the five students that have been rooming together since the first year. Second, and more importantly though, is McGonagall's statement in DH, Chapter 30, in her conversation with Amycus Carrow in the Ravenclaw common room: "Potter belongs in my house!" Not belonged, but belongs. And as Minerva is still the Gryffindor head, I have no doubt that Harry's room is ready and waiting. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com > afn: > The sandwich part was provocative and stood out, but what really > stood out for me was that after a year of not being a Hogwarts > student, Harry seemed to expect his old bed to be waiting for him. > Since he wasn't enrolled that year, his old bed may have been re- > assigned to someone else. 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? > > Maybe classmates and old teachers were reluctant not to save a place > for him or make it a sort of monument, this doesn't seem very > practical. So much has been made (and is interesting) about Kreacher > and the sandwich after the Battle of Hogwarts, but the idea Harry > still had a place in his former dormitory is what struck me. Am I > missing something here? > From penhaligon at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 03:13:34 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:13:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <786B55CCCB90482C93747726E39107D2@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178662 > Celoneth: > I don't see it as normalty, it seems OOC for him - someone who's > always been extremely reluctant for others to do stuff for him. > A wish for peace and rest and a sandwich - sure, I get that - > he deserves that and much more - I just don't understand why > Kreacher is brought into it. Panhandle I think that Harry might think that Kreacher would be upset if anyone, elf or human, got a meal to Harry at this time. -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 30 03:22:41 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:22:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: <3F2DB573A84C428DA8CF5FC259E1A1A0@Home> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178663 I have no issue with Harry expecting his bed to still be available. Savior of the world, most selfless man alive and all that he is - he's still 17 and that's the sort of adolescent logic that he has. (And even Harry acknowledges that adolescent logic when he realizes that for all their work in planning how to get into the Ministry, they never really thought about what would happen once they got inside.) I also agree that too much is being made in interpreting the sentence regarding Harry's bed and sandwich. Which is why, a jillion posts ago, I argued that the phrase says what it says - Harry wants Kreacher to bring him a sandwich - and is not some treatise on Harry's feelings about Kreacher's feelings or an internal debate as to whether to make his own sandwich or not. Harry wants Kreacher to make him a sandwich. My dislike of this particular sentence is that as the very last line of an epic series, "Harry wants a sandwich" is a bit prosaic. On one level it works because again, although he is the savior of the wizarding world, he's still just Harry, the sort of kid who wants a sandwich and a nap. I have no problem with that thought being Harry's last thought in the story. But as the last thought JKR leaves to her reader (in the story proper of course, not counting the epilogue), it's a bit of a clunker. "All was well" for all the abuse it's taken among the fandom, was at least the sort of phrase that acts as an all-encompassing commentary on the series. "Harry wants a sandwich" only led me to expect another chapter to start on the following page - one that begins with Harry waking up fully rested and fed and ready to begin the mourning/rebuilding process. va32h From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 03:22:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:22:44 -0000 Subject: A sandwich and a bed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > there doesn't seem to be anything in canon* to indicate that when > you move from one year to another, you move to a different dormitory > (unlike a lot of school stories) - by assumption, a given room is > allocated to First Years once it's been vacated by departing Seventh > Years. > I'm open to correction from canon on this, of course. You don't need any corrections from canon, on the contrary, canon confirms that you are right and Harry slept in the same dorm and in the same bed every year. Here is the relevant quote (Harry and Ron come to their dorm for the first time in their 2nd year: "... and at last reached the door of their old dormitory, which now had a sign on it saying SECOND YEARS" (CoS p.85 Am. ed.). > So an empty bed (or two - Ron's would be empty too) doesn't seem > too problematical. Or three - Dean wasn't there as well :-). And for the last two weeks the dorm was empty, as Neville and Seamus moved to the RoR. I wouldn't find it strange if Harry, Ron and Dean still had their beds waiting for them in the dormitory (if it wasn't destroyed during the battle). The new administration (Carrows) doesn't seem to have an easy access to dormitories, and I don't see why they would go around removing beds anyway :-). They just won't think to do it, it's not their job. Same goes for Snape. As for McGonagall, I think she would keep the beds just on principle :-). zanooda From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 30 02:54:37 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:54:37 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178665 > > Laura: > I don't think it takes any grand revelations about house elves' > natures. Harry is hungry. House elves fix food at Hogwarts. > Kreacher is at Hogwarts. Kreacher can fix good food for Harry. > Harry is hungry and tired. He wonders if Kreacher could fix > him a sandwich. To me, it is that simple. > As far as food goes, Harry has pretty much ALWAYS let > others help him (at least in the Wizarding World). Does > he cook on the grand camping trip? Does he cook at the > Burrow? > > The only place we saw him cook was at 4 Privet Drive, IIRC. > How do you think would have been in character for him > to get food at that point? Celoneth: I didn't get the impression that he was highly hungry - just a thought in his head, along w/ thoughts of wanting to be alone for a while and get some rest. & I fully expect that house-elves would have made him the food, but I don't, from reading the other books, get the impression that he would think about the concept of house-elves making him food or expecting a house-elf to serve him. He never really pays attention to the Hogwarts house-elves, or house-elves in general even after visiting the kitchens and seeing how everything works and, like I said before, he treats house-elves in the same general way he treats humans which is why, being exhausted as he is, I find it odd that he'd do a complete 180 in his attitude and awareness of the Hogwarts house-elves - given his exhaustion, the nature of everything that transpired, and the heroic and very human behaviour of the house-elves that he's seen recently - it doesn't seem to be the place for him to decide to act like a WW house-elf owner. As far as his reluctance to be helped goes, he only calls on Dobby when he's desperate, and half the time, Dobby's already there willing to serve, same with the DH Kreacher - I never got the impression that Harry would call upon them unless he felt there was no other way or would make use of their services (when they were already there and most likely offering up to do stuff for him). Its a much different attitude then the status-quo WW house-elf owner attitude his comment at the end of DH implies. Celoneth From biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph Tue Oct 30 03:30:22 2007 From: biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph (biancawatanabe_123) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:30:22 -0000 Subject: Why does Draco Malfoy cry inside the bathroom with Myrtle? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178666 I didn't understand that part..I mean if he had a plan on to what he's up to and he seems to be determined then what would be his reason to cry and feel scared? biancawatanabe_123 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:03:10 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:03:10 -0000 Subject: Why does Draco Malfoy cry inside the bathroom with Myrtle? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178667 > > biancawatanabe_123 > I didn't understand that part..I mean if he had a plan on to > what he's up to and he seems to be determined then what would > be his reason to cry and feel scared? zgirnius: Because this is the plan he came up with over the summer, and he still has not managed to get the cabinet fixed sometime in May. From what Harry overhears, Voldemort has made threats to Draco that if he does not succeed (probably with a time limit of the end of the school year) then he and his mother will be killed. Having a plan is no good if he can't fix the megical device he needs to make it work. From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:04:31 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:04:31 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178668 --- "stephab67 wrote: > > Lealess wrote: > It seemed to be an anti-slavery story at one time. It ended up > being anything but. > > Steph: > Well, I think that's going a bit too far in the opposite direction. > I'm with those who think that the writing was a bit sloppy in this > storyline, but I don't think that JKR was being nefarious on this > point, trying to send a message that slavery is OK, after spending > seven books telling people that racism is bad. > I'll go farther in that direction and say the books in the end show a society where there is a natural order, with the wizards at the top and those either variably suited to serve wizards (elves, goblins) or too primitive or exotic to serve them (giants, centaurs) at the bottom. As this is a natural order, it presumably cannot be changed, just as Slytherins can't change their scales. The good wizard, therefore, takes on his burden and becomes a benevolent superior, better able to assist his inferiors in assuming their places to improve their characters. This attitude obviously benefits the obsequious house-elf, who, as we've seen, is only happy when serving, and the inferior goblin, whose morality tends to be native and thus needs to be corrected. As for the more unruly savages such as giants and centaurs, they are to be firmly contained or marginalized, or perhaps even exterminated, for fear their violence will infect the inferior populations. Well, even the "unnatural" house-elves, goblins, giants and centaurs served our worthy hero, as they had to, recognizing him as their moral superior, but in the end, the unnaturals had to go to make way for the reinstitution of the true natural order. This was the viewpoint of British imperialism and, in the end, it seems to fit what JKR had in mind for her society. Along with many other British anachronisms like distrust of foreigners and a view that bullying is just childish public school fun, the message about how a good colonial treats his inferiors reflects a smug and patronizing attitude that completely belongs in the past. JMO, lealess From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:07:31 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:07:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178669 > > Goddlefrood:> > > Do you really think the ghoul in pajamas really convinced > > anyone that it was Ron? > > Potioncat: > Did anyone come to check? Goddlefrood: Just taking this small point. I think, although I couldn't confirm, as I'm at work in many ways, that there was a mention of someone calling on the Weasleys to check on Ron's reason for absence. Apparently, becase spattergroit is so contagious, the official did not care to get too close. As was said at one point, no one wants to get too close to a sufferer and if it was a severe enough case the voice is lost. This has been Goddlefrood from the former leper colony of Makogai, Fiji Islands. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:14:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:14:49 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178670 > va32h: > "Harry wants a sandwich" only led me to expect another chapter to > start on the following page - one that begins with Harry waking up > fully rested and fed and ready to begin the mourning/rebuilding process. zgirnius: Yes, Harry wanted a sandwich would be a lame ending to the series, I must agree. "That wand's more trouble than it's worth. And quite honestly, I've had enough trouble for a lifetime.", the closing statement by our hero with which the book ends, has the same sorts of things going for it as "All was well". It even has the additional advantage of being Harry's final statement of intent regarding the loose end of the Elder Wand which figured so prominently in the climax, noble and self- sacrificing and wise epic hero that he is. That, while making this momentous decision and and declaring it to his closest friends and beloved mentor, Harry realized he longed for his bed and something to eat, does not detract from the closing. For me, anyway. From kspilman at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 04:20:50 2007 From: kspilman at hotmail.com (Katie Spilman) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:20:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178671 "Do you really think the ghoul in pajamas really convinced anyone that it was Ron?" I thought later when Harry was in Umbridge's office he came across a report about Mr. Weasley that said his youngest son (Ron) was sick with spattergoit (sp?) and that ministry officials had confirmed this. Of course, they could have been spies from the order within the ministry that confirmed this....I also thought when Ron came back to Harry and Hermione he told them ministry officials had come to investigate his disappearance. _________________________________________________________________ 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 zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 04:50:47 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:50:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > I think, although I couldn't confirm, as I'm at work in many ways, > that there was a mention of someone calling on the Weasleys to > check on Ron's reason for absence. Apparently, becase spattergroit > is so contagious, the official did not care to get too close. As the previous poster (Katie) pointed out, Harry found information about Ron's "illness" in Arthur Weasley's file ("Youngest son currently at home, seriously ill, Ministry inspectors have confirmed"). I just wanted to add that earlier, when Lupin came to Grimmauld place, he also mentioned that the DEs who appeared at the wedding and searched the Burrow "found the goul, but didn't want to get too close ..."(p.206, Am.ed.). zanooda From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 05:53:43 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:53:43 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: <47268522.8030703@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178673 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Tolkien so much more enjoyable than > Rowling If you enjoy Tolkien then that's fine but I've got to tell you that has not been my experience. I read The Hobbit and thought it we OK but nothing to get very excited about; I've only read the first of the Lord Of The Rings books and would have stopped reading at about page 40 if I was smart. I only finished reading the book out of a sense duty due to a perverse idea I have that once I start a book I must finish it. I vividly remember a feeling of dread just looking at that damn book and knowing I had to pick it up and read more of Tolkien's dreadful songs and more explanations of what The Forest Of Sphincter is called in the Elfin language. JKR on the other hand is a real page turner, nobody had to put a gun to my head to read her stuff, I always felt that all of her books were much too short. > there are no glaring inconsistencies that > leap up to knock you out-of-story I also found that to be true because Tolkien was so mind numbingly dull that I was never in his story so I didn't have to worry about getting knocked out of it. And I can not think of any other author in the English language that is so completely and utterly lacking a sense of humor, in that regard Tolkien is certainly number one. But if you get pleasure from reading Tolkien then that's good, there is no disputing matters of taste. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 05:58:29 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:58:29 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178674 > Celoneth: > I don't see it as normalty, it seems OOC for him - someone who's > always been extremely reluctant for others to do stuff for him. > A wish for peace and rest and a sandwich - sure, I get that - > he deserves that and much more - I just don't understand why > Kreacher is brought into it. Tonks: I saw that comment as a way of telling us, the reader, that Harry was going to be going back to school and finish out the rest of his schooling at Hogwarts. And since Kreacher is a house-elf at Hogwarts it would make sense for him to bring Harry a sandwich. The MAIN point of that sentence was that Harry was going back up to his bedroom in the dorm. This implies that he was going to be going back to school. For me this was just a clue that Harry was not a Wizard School Drop out, he went back and finished his classes and passed his final exams to get his wizarding diploma. 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? Tonks_op From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Oct 30 06:19:16 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:19:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178675 Carol responds: > Interesting that you and I would react so differently here when we seem to share a similar view of House-Elves. For me, what mattered was not the worthless fake locket (which Kreacher values because it belonged to Master Regulus) but Harry's changed view of both Regulus (whom he now recognizes as a hero and an ally, though dead) and of Kreacher himself (who only wants to serve his dead master). Dana: No, I actually read it the same way you did and I agree with you on what this tale was supposed to represent. I also know that it sometimes only takes a gesture of kindness to bring people, or in this case elf and wizard, closer together. I just would have like to have seen it take a little more effort on Harry's part to persuade Kreacher and address that what caused the animosity in the first place and not bypass it with Kreacher's connection to Regulus. It means a lot for Kreacher but it is seems just to easy for Harry. Of course I am still having some sour grapes with Kreacher in relation to Sirius but not because I do not understand what JKR was going for. I just dislike the storyline altogether because although I understand Kreacher's betrayal and what let up to it, to me there were a lot more factors at play that led to the events in OotP as they did, which got totally bypassed in the message JKR wanted to make out of the Kreacher, Sirius and Harry dynamic. So when Hermione starts explaining of Kreacher's behavior, which contradicts DD's explanation (which wasn't any better but alas), it just rubbed me wrong especially because it took a lot of assumptions that where presented as facts. For instance Hermione's would have no way of knowing how Bella and Narcissa treated Kreacher that was just assuming on part of Hermione. There was a lot of animosity from Kreacher towards Sirius that had nothing to do with the way of how Sirius treated Kreacher, especially in relation to what happened between Sirius and predominantly his mother. It was pretty obvious that Kreacher did not have the same animosity towards either Bella or Narcissa and therefore I do not think being nice really had so much to do with it. To me, it was to easily explained away and just didn't fit my personal perceptions of what really happened. Which I of course can only blame myself for but it would have been nice if that part would have been addressed. I am not saying that Sirius reasons for treating Kreacher as he did is in any way okay but to suggest that Kreacher's behavior had no influence at all on breaking open old wounds is ignoring Kreacher as a real part of what was once the Black household. Well let me stop ranting here because it is just a personal feeling of disgruntle I have with this story line. Turning away from your own family is just not as easy as it is made out to be in canon. It is not just about rebelling against your family values. I just am not sure where JKR was going with that and it leaves me a bad taste. Carol: > Harry has the moral obligation of noblesse oblige, as Magpie said, though she apparently doesn't approve of the concept--the duty of those in power (in this case wizards who own House-Elves) to behave responsibly, honorably, and generously to those who are below them in rank or power, including servants. It would be cruel to deprive the aged and eccentric Kreacher of kind treatment, a home, and the opportunity to serve wizards that gives House-Elves so much pleasure (as we see with the reformed Kreacher after Harry gives him the locket). Dana: Well I think part of the slavery idea, as Lizzyben pointed out JKR suggested herself, is in how wizards treated house-elves and not so much in the servitude house-elves have naturally. It is the misuse by wizards of what makes the elves magically bound to serve wizards which makes an analogy with slavery work. Barty Sr. punished Winky by imposing freedom on her and disgracing her among her own kind. Dobby was treated as dirt by the Malfoys and would take freedom over having to serve them any day. Kreacher loved his family but didn't want to serve those he did not see as part of that family but could not do anything more about it then just betray his master. That is why the house-elves at Hogwarts were happy because they could be just house-elves without much human interference. I do not doubt that if a house-elf wanted to be set free all he needed to do is ask. The end of the mistreatment of house-elves was in my opinion still not about changing the house-elf but about changing the wizard's attitude towards house-elves (as you have pointed out too). It is not the servitude that makes the house-elf a slave but the misuse of the house-elf nature. I think that is true for all types of slavery it is not like the black people working on American plantations needed to stop being who they were to impose their freedom, slave owners needed to stop taking advantage of the lack of civil rights these people had in this country. There was nothing wrong with their being it was wrong in the way they were treated. I think the natural servitude house-elves have is what made things confusing within the books. Don't change the house-elf change the wizard was in my opinion supposed to be the message. JMHO Dana From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 06:27:57 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:27:57 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178676 > > Prep0strus: > > Ok, then that's a good question - what about the storyline worked for > you? I think her world is full of depth and complexity without this > storyline. Not quite sure where you're going w/ the whole art > analogy, but I think that in the end, the elf storyline detracts > rather than adds to her world, because in the end it seems like > something she either made a mistake with or forgot about. lizzyben: What if she didn't? The arc is only confusing or contradictory if you're approaching it from the standpoint that the status quo of slavery is bad. Post-DH, I'm not sure that's the correct standpoint. The subplots of the "magical brethren" actually make sense if you approach it from a different angle. Maybe it wasn't about lifting these creatures up, or granting them equality, but about the Trio learning about & taking their rightful place of power over them. It's not an arc about enlightenment or change, but an arc about indoctrination & inheritance. In the end, this is not a story about how Harry changed the Wizarding World, but how the Wizarding World changed Harry. I could accept that maybe the house-elf arc got muddy or confused, except the exact same thing happens to the subplot of every other "oppressed" magical creature. Looking back at the "Fountain of Magical Brethren"... House elves subplot - Introduction: Harry first wants to free Dobby, Hermione forms SPEW to fight for house elf rights. Resolution: The only free house elf dies, Harry accepts his role as slave-owner, Hermione gives up on house elf rights to accept the status quo. Goblins: Introduction - talk of "goblin rebellions" and unfair treatment by wizards, Ludo Bagman borrows money from goblins & then double-crosses them to flee the country. This is presented as a problem & one reason the Order can't get goblins to trust them. Resolution - Harry hatches a plan to double-cross a goblin, just like a proper wizard should, and decides that goblin customs just don't matter. He is rewarded for this attitude when the Sword magically goes from the goblin to its proper place in wizarding hands. Giants: Introduction - conflict between giant-tolerant Hermione & giant-intolerant Ron. Hermione calls it a dumb prejudice. A quote of Ron's that flew by me in GOF: "Well, they were dying out anyway, and then loads got themselves killed by Aurors.." What, they were wiped out in Britain by the MOM? Apparently. Resolution - We realize that giant-intolerant Ron was right; giants actually are big brutes & not fit for wizarding society, though they can become nice pets if sufficiently tamed. Werewolves: Introduction - nice Lupin is the victim of unfair discrimination & prejudice because he is a werewolf. Lots of noise made about ending werewolf discrimination so Lupin & other werewolves can get jobs. Resolution - nice Lupin dies, just as free Dobby did. The other werewolves *are* dangerous & not fit for wizarding society. Greyback is every parent's nightmare & a threat to children. Noises about ending werewolf discrimination dropped. In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these magical creatures, to learning that they actually should have a second-class status in wizarding society. The bigots are right, just as they were right about the Slytherins. The pecking order is not loathsome, but natural & good. And in the last sentence of the last novel, Harry assumes his noblesse oblige as a slaveholder in the Wizarding World. Maybe one subplot got muddled, but how is it possible that *every* creature subplot ended w/Harry learning that the prejudice & oppression is justified? That can't be a coincidence. lizzyben, realizing that Voldemort was actually more tolerant of magical creatures than the MOM was. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 06:45:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:45:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178677 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > ... > > 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? bboyminn: I think it was typical Molly behavior and also very motherly behavior. But at the same time I don't think it was wise. Mothers are always over protective. They see their kids as much more incapable and inexperienced than they are, but like I said, that's typical motherly behavior and I expected no less. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? bboyminn: I think Ron was desperately looking for any alternate interpretation of the facts. He knows that Mad-Eye is likely to be dead, but he is hoping against all hope that he can come up with any other logical explanation. > 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?. bboyminn: It seems that JKR changed the definition and mechanics of the Secret Keeper Spell, but I'm not so sure. I think she always tell the truth, but she doesn't necessarily tell the whole truth. I suspect she was aware that this new expanded function of the spell was coming, but she could, or didn't want to, give away those detail since they played a significant part in book 7. So, she gave us a limited explanation to satisfy the obviously immense curiosity about the spell, and saved the rest for later. She said on her website that when the Secret Keeper died, the only people who would know the spell after that were the people who already knew. "Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." Notice that at the time the Secret Keeper dies, only those who know will know and nobody else. But that doesn't flat out say that nobody else can ever know. > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? bboyminn: Keep in mind that the Diary was no ordinary Horcrux. It had all of Tom Riddle's knowledge and memories up to age 16. I think it was the combination of the two that gave the diary the means to act as it did on Ginny. Also, keep in mind that we have our explanation of possession from Ginny, who has experienced a version of it, but is by no means an expert. So, I think there are different types of possession and very different circumstances under which it can occur. As to Ron, I think he was under the influence of the Locket, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it possessed him. > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? > bboyminn: 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. > 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? > bboyminn: I think it was a reasonably simple explanation for Ron's reasonably simple mind. I think part of this is just JKR re-enforcing certain themes in the book. That under all but an extremely few circumstance the soul is eternal. That the True Self lives on after death. It is only a hint in that moment, but that theme become important later. > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > wedding? > bboyminn: I think Ron and Hermione assumed Harry had a plan and knew exactly there he would look first. So, they were expectin Harry to say, well we'll pick up the trail here. Unfortunately Molly keeping them apart and keeping them from talking prevented Ron and Hermione from finding out that Harry had very little idea of what to do or where to go. > 8. Insert your question here. > > From Laura - Why did Hermione choose Tottenam Court Road? bboyminn: I think she jump to the first muggle landmark that popped into her head. I believe she said she had been there before so she would have known that it was a common muggle night spot and her goal was to hide in plain sight. She assumed a crowd of muggles would allow them to blend in. So, I think to some extent it was a random choice, but under that randomness, there was some logic to it. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 06:47:56 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:47:56 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178678 > lizzyben: > > What if she didn't? The arc is only confusing or contradictory if > you're approaching it from the standpoint that the status quo of > slavery is bad. Post-DH, I'm not sure that's the correct standpoint. > The subplots of the "magical brethren" actually make sense if you > approach it from a different angle. Maybe it wasn't about lifting > these creatures up, or granting them equality, but about the Trio > learning about & taking their rightful place of power over them. It's > not an arc about enlightenment or change, but an arc about > indoctrination & inheritance. In the end, this is not a story about > how Harry changed the Wizarding World, but how the Wizarding World > changed Harry. > In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these magical > creatures, to learning that they actually should have a second-class > status in wizarding society. The bigots are right, just as they were > right about the Slytherins. The pecking order is not loathsome, but > natural & good. And in the last sentence of the last novel, Harry > assumes his noblesse oblige as a slaveholder in the Wizarding World. > Maybe one subplot got muddled, but how is it possible that *every* > creature subplot ended w/Harry learning that the prejudice & > oppression is justified? That can't be a coincidence. > Prep0strus: Well, bad writing wouldn't be a coincidence either, really, but it's also an explanation aside from 'JKR meant to write something subversive'. With almost every topic you have a subversive, inside-out viewpoint to express. And it's not like they can't be defended, and they're certainly interesting. That being said, I don't believe it was the intent. That doesn't matter for the interpretation to exist, and it can be fun to play around with different ways of looking at things, but there is no way I will ever believe JKR meant to write a story in which she expresses the idea that slavery is good and bigotry is good, and all that. Which is why I ask for explanations for things that make sense in areas that to me simply look like poor writing. A lot could also validly be explained by the fact that these are fantasy creatures - just as hippogriffs, by definition, can respond to human verbal treatment, so could house elves very legitimately be perfectly fine as servants without aspiration and giants be violent evil creatures. I agree that that is not always how she presented everything, but that's where I see confusion and missed opportunities - not a deliberate attempt to put forth opposite ideas to everything she has stated. Just as her treatment of Slytherin is not, imo, a support of bigotry, but a statement against the ideas of bigotry. But while I don't agree with you, and have a hard time believing you really even truly agree with what you said... I don't have a good answer. It's why I hate the elf storyline and wonder why it was included. Grawp, as the representative for the giants, and Draco... sort of the representative for the Slytherins, I also see as oddly dropped storylines. Yes, even the goblins... I just don't understand why she brought up issues to not really address them. I don't think the issues were made clear enough (because of the fantasy rules that overlie the structure) to even promote good debate. So it's not that she had to tie these things up in a bow for me to be happy, but I need to see some reason why they were even made a part of the story. There's an argument to be made that centaurs break the mold slightly (though, I'm sure, in your view, their coming to help the 'good' wizards only solidifies their place as subservient), but not enough to truly represent anything important. It really is very confusing to me. I don't think the answer is that prejudice is justified, but I'm sorry to say that I don't have my own theory to put forth. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 07:46:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:46:00 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: <47268522.8030703@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > Geoff: > > I bet that even someone as meticulous as JRRT didn't debate > > why every sentence was there. Lee: > Apparently you haven't read the History of Middle Earth; yeah, he pretty > much did. And then spent a lot of time revising and correcting the > published editions afterward -- right down to the implications of his > (then-novel) spelling of "dwarves", ranting at the publisher for > changing "bride-price" to "bride-piece" and spending countless days > plotting the movements of his characters down to the hour. Gave new > meaning to the word "meticulous". > > You may not have read Tolkien to criticize every sentence, but many folk > do (just try reading the debates over balrogs' wings), and Tolkien's > fanatical attention to detail is part of the reason LoTR is a classic in > ways HP can never hope to be. Tolkien's universe hangs together with a > consistency the Potterverse long ago gave up any hope of claiming. Geoff: Yes I have. I have also read LOTR at least 30 times in the last 50 years. What I am raising an eyebrow about is Annemehr's comment: "Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly not "questionable," but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. That's how finely crafted literature is written. And if a story is not so finely crafted, then each sentence will be thoroughly critiqued, you can be sure." I don't think that JRRT went through EVERY sentence with a fine toothcomb. Don't forget also that there were inconsistencies in "The Silmarillion" which Christopher Tolkien never successfully eradicated before it was published in 1977. JRRT is exceptional. There are many, many authors, including, inter alia, C S Lewis and JKR who have let inconsistencies in but many readers are prepared to let through for the sake of getting on with the reading. Real life can be a bit like that sometimes! :-( From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 08:39:16 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:39:16 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4726EDB4.9050808@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178680 Geoff Bannister: > What I am raising an eyebrow about is Annemehr's comment: > "Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly > not "questionable, " but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a > purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. > I don't think that JRRT went through EVERY sentence with a fine > toothcomb. Thanks for presenting the context. However, I still hold, based on my readings in the History of Middle Earth series that indeed, yes, Tolkien DID go through every (or nearly every) sentence with a fine tooth comb. Which may simply make him not the best example for your argument. > Don't forget also that there were inconsistencies in > "The Silmarillion" which Christopher Tolkien never successfully > eradicated before it was published in 1977. There were, because Tolkien died without finishing it. Remembering that he began writing the Silmarillion in the middle of WWI, and he died in 1973 with it still unfinished to his satisfaction, is a testimony to his fastidiousness, and in this case worked against him: with a lifetime of rewrites and re-visionings to contend with, I'm actually quite impressed with the job Christopher did. Sure, there are inconsistencies, but you can't blame JRRT for dying :-) > There are many, many authors, including, > inter alia, C S Lewis and JKR who have let inconsistencies in > but many readers are prepared to let through for the sake of > getting on with the reading. Real life can be a bit like that > sometimes! :-( Coincidentally, I've never been a big Narnia fan (though I quite admire some of Lewis' lesser-known works; Till We Have Faces holds a special place on my shelf) precisely because of his lack of attention to detail, and I'm afraid JKR is going down the same road for me. I guess I was just not one of those readers willing to let the inconsistencies through, because to me it bespeaks an author who just doesn't believe in, or care enough about, her world to work through the inconsistencies. And there *are* authors who *don't* let inconsistencies through. George R.R. Martin is one of my favorites. Martin's creation has been said to rival Tolkien's in depth and complexity. While I don't quite agree with that, I can understand those who do. eggplant107: > [Long tirade against Tolkien's dullness snipped; concluding with:] > there is no disputing matters of taste. While true, this has little relevance to my point, which is simply that inconsistency was anathema to Tolkien, whereas for JKR it seems to be SOP. If JKR doesn't care enough about her world to work out the inconsistencies, I'm afraid it's hard for me to, either. -CJ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 10:53:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:53:47 -0000 Subject: JKR and JRRT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: Lee Kaiwen: > > Tolkien so much more enjoyable than Rowling Eggplant: > If you enjoy Tolkien then that's fine but I've got to tell you that > has not been my experience. I read The Hobbit and thought it we OK but > nothing to get very excited about; I've only read the first of the > Lord Of The Rings books and would have stopped reading at about page > 40 if I was smart. I only finished reading the book out of a sense > duty due to a perverse idea I have that once I start a book I must > finish it. I vividly remember a feeling of dread just looking at that > damn book and knowing I had to pick it up and read more of Tolkien's > dreadful songs and more explanations of what The Forest Of Sphincter > is called in the Elfin language. JKR on the other hand is a real page > turner, nobody had to put a gun to my head to read her stuff, I always > felt that all of her books were much too short. Lee Kaiwen: > > there are no glaring inconsistencies that > > leap up to knock you out-of-story Eggplant: > I also found that to be true because Tolkien was so mind numbingly > dull that I was never in his story so I didn't have to worry about > getting knocked out of it. And I can not think of any other author in > the English language that is so completely and utterly lacking a sense > of humor, in that regard Tolkien is certainly number one. But if you > get pleasure from reading Tolkien then that's good, there is no > disputing matters of taste. Geoff: In replying to your post, I must see if I can get the discussion back on topic in relation what we are saying to JKR's books or the elves will not be in the Forest of Sphincter but in the here and now! As you say, matters of taste are matters of taste. I first met LOTR in about 1955/56 when I was 15 or 16 and it blew me away. There was nothing like it. I read "The Hobbit" many years later and didn't really take to it, because of the rather childish level of the humour in it ? and that wasn't meant snobbishly because it was written for younger children anyway. Not everybody likes the Ring. My wife just isn't into either that or the HP books. Tolkien himself was fully aware of this and wrote on one occasion: `The Lord of the Rings' is one of those things: if you like it you do; if you don't then you boo! which I think also disproves your point about his sense of humour. If you read one of the biographies - perhaps Humphrey Carpenter's early one from 1977 ? much is revealed about this. There is humour in LOTR but I think we need to compare the two worlds of Middle earth and the Wizarding world. In JKR's books, we are in a modern setting with modern teenagers, so the humour is late 20th century to match. I enjoy the humour of the HP books; I have on occasion laughed out loud and long at some it, especially the verbal examples. On the other hand, with LOTR, the excellent Peter Jackson film adaptations have blurred one fact, possibly because Elijah Wood and a number of the other principal players are young. In the book, Frodo is 50 when he sets off on the Quest and we are also in a historically distant era where life was a bit more serious and demanding than in our current labour-saving existence. Gandalf didn't use his wand to do the washing-up. :-) There again, our chief baddie, Sauron, unlike Voldemort, is rather inaccessible and not open to the gentle chiding of his former Professor. I would love to see Gandalf knocking on the gates of the Morannon and saying to Sauron "Now look, here, Andy (or whatever), you've got to stop behaving like this. Just because you haven't got a body anymore you can't go round sulking and wanting to rule the world." No, there is humour in both but it is of a different kind. I can appreciate both these series of books. But, as you correctly said, it's a matter of individual taste which, in passing, is why I find some of the current argumentative threads on HPFGU frustrating and, to an extent, pointless. From jujupoet29 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 10:56:31 2007 From: jujupoet29 at hotmail.com (sienna291973) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:56:31 -0000 Subject: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > But that's our sensibility isn't it - any amount of violence is > acceptable, any drop of sexuality offensive. Some movie director said > once - you can show a breast being sliced off and get an "R" rating, > but if you show a breast being caressed it's an "X". I don't particularly mind the idea of Dumbledore being gay. In fact, within the books as a relevant subplot, it would have been a brilliant way of subverting the traditional wise old man figure and made quite a comment about society. And no, I don't think children need protecting from something like that but rather exposure to it would have been great. HOWEVER, like all of Rowling's extra-canon pronouncements, it is just irrelevant. We do not see it, we don't get anything beyond perhaps a shadow of a hint of it (and that's at a wild stretch). We don't get to experience it. It has nothing to do with Harry's journey. At no point is gayness in the wizarding community ever touched upon as an issue. To mention it now, after so many years and 4000 odd words? Ridiculous and vaguely offensive both to her readers and to the homosexual community, which frankly deserves better than being tossed a scrap as an afterthought. Dumbledore as a gay man in a powerful position would have been an extremely strong subplot. As a throwaway line in an interview ten years after we're first introduced to him, it's completely irrelevant. Irrelevant because as a reader I can ignore it. I don't object to the idea, but I do have a serious problem with her insistence on limited perceptions of her work. In my opinion, that kind of fundamentalism has no place in the realm of the imagination and is more suited to the realm of the religious (where most of the problems are caused by people's inability to accept alternative perceptions of the nature of God!). What right does Rowling have to insist on one way of viewing her text? She had 4000 words in which to tell her story. The rest is up to the reader. And when Rowling isn't around to tell people how they *should* be reading Harry Potter, who's character will he be then? Sienna *Who apologises for the mild rant* From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 12:25:00 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:25:00 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178683 > >>lizzyben: > > What if she didn't? The arc is only confusing or contradictory if > > you're approaching it from the standpoint that the status quo of > > slavery is bad. Post-DH, I'm not sure that's the correct > > standpoint. The subplots of the "magical brethren" actually make > > sense if you approach it from a different angle. Maybe it wasn't > > about lifting these creatures up, or granting them equality, but > > about the Trio learning about & taking their rightful place of > > power over them. > > > > And in the last sentence of the last novel, Harry assumes his > > noblesse oblige as a slaveholder in the Wizarding World. Maybe > > one subplot got muddled, but how is it possible that *every* > > creature subplot ended w/Harry learning that the prejudice & > > oppression is justified? That can't be a coincidence. > >>Prep0strus: > Well, bad writing wouldn't be a coincidence either, really, but it's > also an explanation aside from 'JKR meant to write something > subversive'. With almost every topic you have a subversive, > inside-out viewpoint to express. And it's not like they can't be > defended, and they're certainly interesting. Betsy Hp: If it's what the author intended, is it still subversive? (I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, I really don't know.) But if JKR *meant* for Harry to assume his proper role at the top of the WW's food-chain, if she *meant* for us to recognize that there are icky people in the world that should be labeled and separated out from the good folk, is that reading still "subversive"? And that so many of the "subversive" readings can be defended... doesn't that say something? > >>Prep0strus: > That being said, I don't believe it was the intent. > Betsy Hp: Why do you believe that this wasn't JKR's intent? And to be clear, I'm not asking this question with any sort of hostility or to set up a zinger or anything. It's just, I've seen folks say, "JKR would never write something like that" to defend against the theory that she *did* actually write something like that. And I'm wondering where that conviction comes from. We don't know JKR personally (at least, no one on the list has said they're close personal friends) and while we do have her interviews, they are often contradictory with each other *and* with the books. And at least one of the examples Lizzyben used (the treatment of goblins) is backed by a JKR interview in which she says that only goblin fanatics would protest the Trio's deception over the sword (or words to that effect). Which would mean, I'd think, that yes we *are* supposed to look down on goblins on the whole. > >>Prep0strus: > > Just as her treatment of Slytherin is not, imo, a support of > bigotry, but a statement against the ideas of bigotry. > > But while I don't agree with you, and have a hard time believing you > really even truly agree with what you said... I don't have a good > answer. > Betsy Hp: I just want to take this moment to say I for one (can't speak for Lizzyben obviously) absolutely believe that DH really *does* encourage bigotry and hate. I could easily see a group intent on teaching hate or distrust of outsiders using DH (and therefore the series) as a teaching tool. All they need to do is link Slytherins (or House Elves, or Goblins) to whatever group they're putting down. The rest would follow. I do, however, question whether this was something JKR actually *meant* to do. Even with my questions to you above, I have a hard time believing JKR actually supports the message I think her books put out. (Does she really think there's such an obvious and inviolate pecking order to the world? Does she want there to be one?) > >>Prep0strus: > It really is very confusing to me. I don't think the answer is that > prejudice is justified, but I'm sorry to say that I don't have my > own theory to put forth. Betsy Hp: I share your confusion. Honestly, I do. At first when I finished DH, sickened and angry, I decided JKR was plain crazy, filled with fury and hate and this is what came of it. But now... You can write a first draft in a storm of emotion, but did JKR really pour through her drafts and consciously *decide* to leave all the petty hate intact? I mean, as Lizzyben points out, the message that the way of the WW was right all along is pretty darn consistent. One or two story- lines falling by the wayside, maybe, but all of them? So yeah, it leaves me wondering what the heck JKR was thinking. What *was* her intent? Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Tue Oct 30 12:32:57 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:32:57 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > Yes, Harry wanted a sandwich would be a lame ending to the series, I > must agree. > > "That wand's more trouble than it's worth. And quite honestly, I've > had enough trouble for a lifetime.", the closing statement by our > hero with which the book ends, has the same sorts of things going for > it as "All was well". va32h: Oh I don't agree at all. I found that line of Harry's terribly cheesy. It didn't sound like Harry's natural voice to me - it sounded very in-the-know "I've had enough trouble for a lifetime" (turn to the audience, grin slyly and wink). From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Oct 30 12:50:17 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:50:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178685 In a message dated 10/30/2007 1:45:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: bboyminn: No: HPFGUIDX 178686 Betsy Hp: >But the reader isn't coming to the series as a blank slate. JKR >*has* to realize the kind of loaded word "slave" is. And she's no >stranger to using our RW context to add depth to story (ie Nazis = >Death Eaters). Bart: The question really is, what is a house elf? Humans have long, and continue to, use animals for work and food. In general, animals who are higher in intelligence and are used for complex tasks are not generally eaten (although horses appear to be on the borderline there). Some animals have a genetic instinct to follow a leader unquestioningly, such as pack animals. So, the question comes on the origin of house elves. JKR doesn't give us a clue, unfortunately, so we don't know if they come from a similar stock as humans, breeding and enchantment were used to make them into slaves and like it, or did they come from servile animals, and the enchantment is used to bind them to a specific individual, to prevent them from being taken advantage of. It does seem that house elves are treated more like highly intelligent working animals than human slaves. If they are a comment on the treatment of animals by humans, JKR is not the first to do so. One of the stories in the then cutting-edge science fiction collection, DANGEROUS VISIONS involved a parallel Earth where a minor genetic variation of humans were given surgeries at birth to keep their intelligence at animal level, and were used as beasts of burden and for milk production. The question becomes (and is an underdeveloped theme in the book), when does an animal become a person. Centaurs, for example, are very clearly depicted as people, while kneazles, for example, are clearly on the animal side. But on what side are house elves? Maybe the encyclopedia will tell us what JKR had in mind. Bart From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 15:32:52 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:32:52 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and JRRT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47274EA4.2050704@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178687 Geoff Bannister: > "Just because you haven't got a body anymore you > can't go round sulking and wanting to rule the world." Just to correct one myth perpetuated by the movie (and to move this thread completely OT): of course Sauron had a body; on what did he wear the Ring? And you'll recall Gollum specifically mentioning Sauron's missing finger. But yes, there is much humor in Tolkien, even in the first book. If Eggplant missed it, I suspect that might tell us more about Eggplant than it does about Tolkien. --CJ (who loved the movies in general, but found the whole "Lidless Eye" thing one of their more annoying discrepancies) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 15:46:26 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:46:26 -0000 Subject: What is a house elf? In-Reply-To: <19610559.1193756289708.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Bart: > The question really is, what is a house elf? Humans have long, and continue to, use animals for work and food. In general, animals who are higher in intelligence and are used for complex tasks are not generally eaten (although horses appear to be on the borderline there). Some animals have a genetic instinct to follow a leader unquestioningly, such as pack animals. <<>> It does seem that house elves are treated more like highly intelligent working animals than human slaves. <<>> The question becomes (and is an underdeveloped theme in the book), when does an animal become a person. Centaurs, for example, are very clearly depicted as people, while kneazles, for example, are clearly on the animal side. But on what side are house elves? Maybe the encyclopedia will tell us what JKR had in mind. > > Bart ***Katie: I had never really thought of this angle before. I think it's very interesting... However, I still fall on the side of the storyline just being poorly written and conceived. If JKR was trying to make a comment on the treatment of working animals, then she should have made it unambiguously clear that House Elves were creatures, not people. I agree that this is a very undeveloped theme. Dobby's servile attitude and cartoonish speech is indicative of his lesser intelligence and maybe of his genetic disposition to serve. However, his growing confidence with his own magic, his independence of spirit after coming to work at Hogwarts, and moreover his determination to be free, contradict his status as a creature and make him far too human for his bondage to be acceptable. Harry's grave marker, honoring Dobby's pride in his freedom, further reinforces the idea that House Elves are human-like, with hopes and dreams and rights, whether or not they are honored in the WW. Kreacher is another example of independence that belies his seemingly servile attitude. Yes, he is unswervingly loyal to the Blacks, and then, eventually, to Harry. However, it took a significant shift in attitude for him to be able to accept Harry as his "master", and that must have taken quite a bit of internal dialogue and consideration. These are very human characteristics. Had JKR wanted to depict these creatures as animals, not people, she should have left out Dobby's and Kreacher's internal struggles. These kinds of crises of conscience are purely human, IMO. Thus, when Kreacher is left enslaved and nothing is said of the House Elves in the epilogue, it is hard to understand what point JKR was trying to make. At the very least, the House Elf storyline is incredibly self- contradictory, IMO. Hermione shouldn't be making decisions for the House Elves, but it's ok for their "masters" to. House Elves shouldn't be enslaved, but nor should they be forced out of slavery against their wishes. I'm just flummuxed by the whole thing! KATIE From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 30 15:48:01 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:48:01 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178689 > > lizzyben: > > > I could accept that maybe the house-elf arc got muddy or confused, > except the exact same thing happens to the subplot of every other > "oppressed" magical creature. Looking back at the "Fountain of Magical > Brethren"... > > House elves subplot - Introduction: Harry first wants to free Dobby, > Hermione forms SPEW to fight for house elf rights. Resolution: The > only free house elf dies, Harry accepts his role as slave-owner, > Hermione gives up on house elf rights to accept the status quo. Pippin: This is a highly selective reading, IMO. The issue of refusing to benefit from slave labor was raised and dispatched in GoF, with Hermione's abortive hunger strike. Harry, who has himself been a kitchen slave in all but name, and has experienced near starvation, never objects to food on the table and used not to care how it got there. At the end, he at least knows personally the Elf who is going to prepare his food, cares about his history and welfare, and has felt sympathy for Hermione's desire to better things for Elves generally. In DH, the enchantment which forces disobedient Elves to punish themselves, which was treated as a running gag with Dobby, was suddenly revealed in its full horror. It was shown that even a kind and well-meaning master like Regulus could not protect Elves from its effects. So much for being a kind and well-meaning master of slaves. There is no simple heartening answer, because there is no simple heartening answer in the real world. I take it no one reading this owns a House Elf, but if you think you can be part of the global economy (which you are, if you're reading this) and not benefit from exploited labor, think again. Maybe you make your own sandwich -- but was the lettuce and tomato grown by a legally employed worker? Was it transported with fuel that didn't come from a country where women are oppressed? Are you sure? Yep, that's the mark of a good exploited worker, er House Elf -- you don't see them. Lizzyben: > Goblins: Introduction - talk of "goblin rebellions" and unfair > treatment by wizards, Ludo Bagman borrows money from goblins & then > double-crosses them to flee the country. This is presented as a > problem & one reason the Order can't get goblins to trust them. > Resolution - Harry hatches a plan to double-cross a goblin, just like > a proper wizard should, and decides that goblin customs just don't > matter. He is rewarded for this attitude when the Sword magically goes > from the goblin to its proper place in wizarding hands. Pippin: Neville, who has *not* mistreated goblins, recovers the sword. The sword does properly belong in Gryffindor hands, and Harry, not acting like a true Gryffindor, loses it. Harry rightly recognizes that he is planning something very close to a betrayal, and his rationalization to himself that he is going to keep his word later rings a change on Dumbledore's promise to tell Harry everything. Bill's comment, that both wizards and goblins have deeds to answer for, shows true. Lizzyben: > Giants: Introduction - conflict between giant-tolerant Hermione & > giant-intolerant Ron. Hermione calls it a dumb prejudice. A quote of > Ron's that flew by me in GOF: "Well, they were dying out anyway, and > then loads got themselves killed by Aurors.." What, they were wiped > out in Britain by the MOM? Apparently. Resolution - We realize that > giant-intolerant Ron was right; giants actually are big brutes & not > fit for wizarding society, though they can become nice pets if > sufficiently tamed. > Pippin: People don't bring pets to funerals. It may be too late to help the Giants, but it's made clear that if their nature is brutal when they haven't got enough to eat and they're overcrowded, they're no different then Harry, Hermione and Ron. Lizzyben: > Werewolves: Introduction - nice Lupin is the victim of unfair > discrimination & prejudice because he is a werewolf. Lots of noise > made about ending werewolf discrimination so Lupin & other werewolves > can get jobs. Resolution - nice Lupin dies, just as free Dobby did. > The other werewolves *are* dangerous & not fit for wizarding society. > Greyback is every parent's nightmare & a threat to children. Noises > about ending werewolf discrimination dropped. Pippin: Again, selectivity, IMO. Not all other werewolves are dangerous. There's no danger from the one we meet in St Mungo's (unless you take his threat to bite Arthur seriously) nor from those Newt Scamander describes in FB. Teddy Lupin, who was considered as a cub, who was rejected, briefly, even by his own father, and would not have been allowed to live, much less attend Hogwarts, became an accepted member of society. Lizzyben: > In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these magical > creatures, to learning that they actually should have a second-class > status in wizarding society. Pippin: In every subplot, Harry and Hermione go from apathy or ignorant hope to the knowledge that achieving a more equitable society will be difficult, but improvements can and should be made. It might take them a long time to achieve full equality, especially when Voldemort and his allies tried to kill off everyone who makes a good argument for it, from Dobby to Dumbledore. It's left to the survivors (and us) to see that those ideals do not perish. But what Harry, Ron and Hermione do about discrimination in their world does not matter in the end. All that matters is what we do, in ours. A glorious ending which gives you a happy feeling inside will not raise the minimum wage or feed a hungry child (except insofar as JKR donates her earnings to her causes. ) The bigots are not right any more than Hagrid was right about Slytherin, or Ron was right about poisonous mushrooms not changing their spots. The only way the bigots will be right is if people start believing that slow progress is the same as no progress, so why even try? If you think that people will not be moved to struggle against discrimination unless JKR shows them that it will be easy, I can only say that I disagree. The struggle will be hard, it may even sometimes go backwards. Harry's crucio was a step in the wrong direction, IMO. But if we suppose that nice people are too good to use torture, we will not invest in ways to prevent it, and if we think that good people who do wrong will always recognize their faults then we won't investigate, or we won't believe the investigators. To those who feel that a realistic treatment of civil rights takes them out of the story, well, maybe that's the idea. It's just possible that JKR thinks civil rights are more important than stories, you know? > lizzyben, realizing that Voldemort was actually more tolerant of > magical creatures than the MOM was. > Pippin: Oh, he could tolerate just about anything as long as he had a use for it. He wasn't showing any tolerance towards Lupin's family, and he murdered goblin families and treated House Elves like vermin. But if you'd rather see him as a champion, go right ahead. You won't be more wrong than young Regulus Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 16:54:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:54:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's bed (Was: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: <872989.12389.qm@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178690 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > > > It's a minor point for me, though, because there doesn't seem to be > anything in canon* to indicate that when you move from one year to > another, you move to a different dormitory (unlike a lot of school > stories) - by assumption, a given room is allocated to First Years > once it's been vacated by departing Seventh Years. So an empty bed > (or two - Ron's would be empty too) doesn't seem too problematical. > > Pam, for whom nothing is too small, comments: > > Remembering the amount of death there had just been at Hogwarts, coupled with the fact that there were no Muggle-borns at Hogwarts anymore (I'm not certain if half-bloods were still allowed to go) it seems to me there would be many fewer students at Hogwarts that year. Therefore, it is entirely plausable that there were many empty beds, Harry's among them. I can imagine that there would be no boy who would want to be caught sleeping in the bed that had been Harry's, for fear of looking like he was showing some small support of Harry to the new administration, and for fear of flaunting a belief that Harry was dead or run off to Harry's supporters in that room. > Carol responds: I agree that there would be fewer students at Hogwarts because the Muggle-borns weren't attending, and there were certainly no new seventh-years. Since the students use the same dormitory each year (rather than first-years moving to a new room when they become second-years and so on), I see no reason why the room wouldn't retain the same number of beds until a new set of first-years replaced the seventh years and perhaps required an extra bed or two (unless there are always five new boys and five new girls per House each year ;-) ). The room wouldn't magically know that three of the five boys who had used that room for six years wouldn't be attending for their seventh year, would it? Maybe there's some magical connection or means of communication between the Sorting Hat and the dormitories that tells the rooms how many beds to produce, similar to the magic used by the Room of Requirement. At any rate, I see no reason for Harry not to expect his room to be just as he left it, only without his, Ron's, and Dean's trunks and belongings. Hogwarts has been his only real home, and it's waiting for him. Carol, wondering whether HRH and Dean were able to finish up the month or two left in the school year just as Hermione was allowed to finish her second year after having been Catified and Petrified From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 17:32:19 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:32:19 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] WHOSE DD is he? (Was: Re: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47276AA3.2000500@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178691 CJ: > When JKR says, "He is my character," she is not only wrong, she is offensive. > Julie: > Here I disagree, because in at least one sense--the legal sense-- > Dumbledore IS JKR's character. This is, of course, true. But laws regarding ownership of literary characters are generally limited in purvue to issues involving profit, as you've noted. Which is not at all what I'm addressing. > And I believe this is exactly what JKR is referring to, no doubt a > bit defensively (I would be). This I don't quite see. She's addressing an audience of fans, of readers who are asking for information about the characters, not a bunch of literary hacks who are looking to make a profit from them. I just don't see the issue of legal ownership as part of the context of her comments, as no one is disputing that. But YMMV. CJ: > What her answer *should* have been was, " ... The question is not, > 'Is DD gay?' but, 'Is *your* DD -- the one you created...." Julie: > (though I'd cut out "the one you created" bit if I was the author Yeah, OK. That was a bit over the top, but I intended it hyperbolically to make the point. Change it to "co-created". I don't dispute either JKR's legal ownership of the Potter characters and universe, or her legal right to say what she likes about them. I'm talking not about rights but about authorial responsibility and respect for one's readers. Imagine I spend some time fashioning a toy. Perhaps I put a great deal of effort into its creation, who knows? In any case, when I've finished, I hand it to my daughter and say, "Here, look! Here's a toy Daddy made for you to enjoy. But it's my toy -- I made it, I own it -- and I say it's a car. Please play with it as long as you like, but you must imagine it's a car. You're not allowed to imagine it's a bus or a truck or a van, because it's my toy and I say it's not, so please don't even *try* to tell me it isn't or I'll get angry." That's what I get out of her "He's my character. He is what he is" comments. But once again, YMMV. >(For instance, how many fans *didn't* accept the background > facts about Dean Thomas's upbringing that JKR supplied I can only speak for myself on this when I say, "What are you talking about?" :-) Seriously. Because I never pay attention to her interviews and I have no idea what Dean Thomas' backstory is supposed to be. So I guess my response is I hadn't protested before for several reasons: 1. I don't follow JKR's interviews and have very little clue what she's ever said in any of them. 2. What (extremely!) little I *have* heard has never touched on any aspect of the Potter universe that I had a significant investment in. Dean Thomas is a case in point: assuming I *had* heard JKR's musings on his backstory, I would probably just have shrugged since Dean was not a character I had invested a great deal in. 3. JKR has never before (that I'm aware of) followed her comments up with "He's mine and he is what I say he is, so y'all can just go to h*ll!" (OK, I admit I added the southern accent for dramatic effect; but the rest is pretty much verbatim, right? :-) ). 4. I've never before felt as if a circle had just been circumscribed around my imagination. From this point forward, it will be very difficult to muse about anything other than a homosexual DD, at least in public, despite the fact that canon allows it. If somewhere in the future I post my speculations about, say, DD's ex-wives, I will be immediately inundated with "But DD's gay!" posts, re-opening this whole debate and causing me to slink back into my hole wishing I'd never mentioned it. And of course, everyone will so busy re-hashing the current debate that I'll never get the chance to discuss my theories anyway; I'll be too busy defending myself against the Gay!DD-ers. --CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 17:45:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:45:25 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: <47268556.7060003@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > prep0strus wrote: > > Prep0strus: > > > > But by making Dobby want not just to be treated well, but to have > > freedom and payment, > > Does he? > > Did he express any interest in freedom or payment before Harry got him > freed? He may see no middle ground between being free and paid, and > being abused by the Malfoys, and sees the former as the lesser of two evils? > --Random832 > Carol responds: And let's look, too, at what "freedom" meant for Dobby and Winky. Winky, of course, was essentially fired, her cute little schoolgirl outfit being her only compensation for her years of devotion to her masters. Once she found employment (thanks to Dobby's idea) she was desperately unhappy even with excellent working conditions. (She evidently rejected the idea of payment and days off as unbefitting a House-Elf. Freedom, for her, meantdisgrace, and despite a new job (at which she could have done as well as any other House-elf had she so chosen, she sank into drunkenness and squalor. Dobby, too, faced a long period of unemployment. He's freed at the end of CoS, but he doesn't show up at Hogwarts until GoF. What was he doing (or what were he and Winky doing) for the entire year of PoA? Not even a House-Elf can conjure food magically (unless Gamp's Five Laws, or whatever the term is, don't apply to them). They certainly weren't employed. They had air to breathe and the clothes (or filthy pillowcase, in Dobby's case) on their backs and nothing else. They were homeless and unemployed, with only Dobby's indomitable spirit to keep them, somehow, alive. "Dobby likes being paid, but he likes work better," he tells Harry in GoF (quoted from memory). And he talks Dumbledore *down* when DD offers him a salary he thinks is too large and more days off than he wants. And even as a free House-Elf who sometimes chooses to serve Harry, he's still *supposed* to be in the kitchens with the other House-Elves, just as a human employee is *supposed* to be at his or her desk (or whatever) instead of doing whatever he'd rather be doing. (Was it Pippin who mentioned "wage slaves"?) What is freedom if you've lost your job, other than the freedom to look for another source of income (or room and board, if you're a House-Elf), another place to work, another employer who perhaps will treat you kindly, perhaps not? A "free" House-elf searching for a new master is more to be pitied than envied, IMO. He or she needs a master, a human being to serve. that's what House-Elves want, the only thing they know how to do. In Dobby's case, he chose to serve Dumbledore (in return for some small wages with which to buy clothes and a few days off) and Harry, in return for nothing except the honor of it as an expression of his gratitude. If Harry were to free Kreacher, depriving him of his home at 12 GP and his chance to work for a master he respects (now that Harry has caught on to Kreacher's devotion to Master Regulus), would Kreacher be grateful and happy? I think not. At least now Kreacher wears a clean tea towel and has the means of taking a bath. A nice little bed in a small, clean room in place of his den is probably the only other thing he wants or needs (assuming that Harry returns to 12 GP). and, IMO, he would be both honored and happy to get Master Harry a sandwich now that Master Harry has destroyed the Dark Lord that Master Regulus was also (for reasons perhaps unfathomable to Kreacher) trying to defeat. If we think of House-Elves as the beings whose psychology Hermione describes in "Kreacher's Tale," there's nothing to object to in Harry's request (actually only a hope as worded in the book) for a sandwich. It's only when we bring in the interviews that Harry becomes a "slave master." (At least he's a kind one who practices noblesse oblige.) But, IMO, Ron and the Twins were reight and Hermione wrong about the House-Elves' desire for freedom. If they wanted to be freed, they certainly would not have refused to clean the Gryffindor Common Room. (Refused to do their job, or part of it, because they were insulted by the attempt to trick them into freedom--read unemployment--whether they wanted it or not and whether or not it was hers to give.) If they can refuse to do part of their normally assigned work, they're not really slaves, are they? (Dobby owned by the Malfoys is a different case altogether, an abuse of a system that ought to be mutually beneficial.) I'm wondering exactly what "freedom" for House-Elves means to other posters who see it as a good thing (rather than the disgrace that House-Elves perceive it as being or the homelessness and unemployment that Dobby and Winky faced for a year). Does anyone think that they're going to train to become accountants? There's no such education available in the WW unless it's for goblins. And what good would a Hogwarts education do them? They don't need to learn to use a wand; they can do magic without one. Would a House-Elf want to learn Astronomy or Divination or Potions or COMC? I rather doubt it. They like housework and cooking. They're exceptionally skilled at that sort of work. Why not let them do what they want to do and are good at? (A placement service for "freed" House-elves might be a good thing, though.) Carol, wishing that JKR had said nothing about "slavery" in interviews since canon presents House-Elves as psychologically different from human beings and happy to serve them From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 17:57:28 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:57:28 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178693 > >>lizzyben: > > > > House elves subplot - Introduction: Harry first wants to free > > Dobby, Hermione forms SPEW to fight for house elf rights. > > Resolution: The only free house elf dies, Harry accepts his role > > as slave-owner, Hermione gives up on house elf rights to accept > > the status quo. > >>Pippin: > This is a highly selective reading, IMO. The issue of refusing to > benefit from slave labor was raised and dispatched in GoF, with > Hermione's abortive hunger strike. > Betsy Hp: And the issue of House Elves being freed was dispatched in DH with the death of Dobby and with Harry's embracing the life of a slave- owner. How does this make lizzyben's reading selective? > >>Pippin: > There is no simple heartening answer, because there is no simple > heartening answer in the real world. > Betsy Hp: But there *is* a simple heartening answer in the books. Owning a slave is perfectly fine if the slave wants to be owned. RL is a bit messier, but JKR has created a world where everything is neat. Kreature is happy to be owned and Harry is happy to own him. Cue credits. > >>Lizzyben: > > > Resolution - Harry hatches a plan to double-cross a goblin, just > > like a proper wizard should, and decides that goblin customs just > > don't matter. He is rewarded for this attitude when the Sword > > magically goes from the goblin to its proper place in wizarding > > hands. > >>Pippin: > Neville, who has *not* mistreated goblins, recovers the sword. The > sword does properly belong in Gryffindor hands, and Harry, not > acting like a true Gryffindor, loses it. > Betsy Hp: And only a "goblin fanatic" would question the idea that wizards are perfectly correct in their views and goblins are wrong. After all, wizards have flags. (That's an Eddy Izzard joke about how England conquered the world through the cunning use of flags.) The "superiour" culture dictates to the weaker culture how things are going to be. Again, the pecking order is made very clear and Harry is in the class on top. And again I'm left wondering how Lizzyben's reading is subversive. It's right there in the text: goblins are wrong and wizards are right. > >>Lizzyben: > > In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these > > magical creatures, to learning that they actually should have a > > second-class status in wizarding society. > >>Pippin: > In every subplot, Harry and Hermione go from apathy or ignorant > hope to the knowledge that achieving a more equitable society will > be difficult, but improvements can and should be made. > Betsy Hp: Where or where do you get this Pippin? Seriously, some straight forward, non-symbolic text that clearly states that the state of the WW bothers Harry and he's going to do something about it though it may take years. Something concrete please. > >>Pippin: > But what Harry, Ron and Hermione do about discrimination in their > world does not matter in the end. All that matters is what we do, in > ours. A glorious ending which gives you a happy feeling inside > will not raise the minimum wage or feed a hungry child (except > insofar as JKR donates her earnings to her causes. ) Betsy Hp: And this is the easy out, IMO. Because this discussion is *about* what Harry and Hermione and Ron do and think about the state of their world. Lizzyben has posited (and I agree) that in the end they embrace their world and the power it gives them, with no worries about the lesser beings. You state this sort of reading is subversive but then you finish off by saying it doesn't matter. I find this frustrating. (That may be coming through. ) If the reading is subversive show me evidence *in DH* that Harry is fighting the powers that be, not becoming one of them. > >>Pippin: > The bigots are not right any more than Hagrid was right about > Slytherin, or Ron was right about poisonous mushrooms not > changing their spots. > Betsy Hp: Gah! But Hagrid *was* right as per DH. Ron *was* right as per DH. SLYTHERIN WALKED OUT! How do you turn that text around? Because the way it stands, the way I read it, Slytherins are bad and cannot change. They are poison and cannot be trusted in times of trouble. At least that's how I read DH. I think an argument can be made that as the bad guys Slytherins aren't supposed to be anything but rotten. (I see problems with how JKR went about doing this, though.) However, this idea that we're supposed to somehow glean from the text where Slytherin is doing everything except actually *say* call us Judas, that Slytherins actually have some good in them at heart and at some point where we'll never see it they'll finally be accepted as good upstanding members of the WW is... frankly, I just don't see it, and so far nothing has been provided for me too see it. Betsy Hp From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 17:58:02 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178694 > Betsy Hp: > Why do you believe that this wasn't JKR's intent? And to be clear, > I'm not asking this question with any sort of hostility or to set up > a zinger or anything. It's just, I've seen folks say, "JKR would > never write something like that" to defend against the theory that > she *did* actually write something like that. And I'm wondering > where that conviction comes from. We don't know JKR personally (at > least, no one on the list has said they're close personal friends) > and while we do have her interviews, they are often contradictory > with each other *and* with the books. > > And at least one of the examples Lizzyben used (the treatment of > goblins) is backed by a JKR interview in which she says that only > goblin fanatics would protest the Trio's deception over the sword (or > words to that effect). Which would mean, I'd think, that yes we > *are* supposed to look down on goblins on the whole. > > It's hard to answer your questions because I just don't know. But the books, when not overanalyzed the way we do on these boards, has a pretty clear message. The Slytherin thing doesn't read to me the way it does to you and Lizzyben. I don't think it has the depth and complexity that many of us assumed it did earlier on, but I think she created a group that has corrupt ideals. She places prejudice, blood superiority, unchecked ambition, as well as a wealth of negative personality traits in one place, and associates them together. Mean bullies who hate poor people and grow up to be killers whose goal is blood purity... there are exceptions and complications in fiction, but these are the ideas she puts together. These are the 'bad' people. It may not have worked for you if you see it just as wrong to discriminate against the discriminator, but as a straight lesson that bigotry is wrong, I think it works. I think it is the message most people get from the books. And her interviews are not THAT contradictory. Yes, she could be going out there and lying, I suppose, when she says she's against prejudice and for love and all that. But I tend to believe her, though I don't agree with the way she went about it at all times. As for goblins... I wonder if it's not more a misunderstanding of fantasy. The idea of ownership being linked to the creator is not JKR's idea. But she, like most of us, disagrees with that concept, and, while she put it in the books, perhaps she wasn't able to put it in the books in an equal sense. She put it there as a nod to a concept present in fantasy, but also believed it was wrong and stupid and so didn't allow it to have moral bearing. That doesn't mean goblins are a representative of how it's ok to treat people who are different than you badly. It means she created goblins that are selfish and mean, like the goblins of many other stories. Again, these things don't have to work for you, and they often don't work for me, but it also doesn't suggest to me that she was trying to state something other than what appears to be the most obvious message of the series. I don't read the hate that you do. I think a big part of that comes from not caring about Slytherin, and pretty much thinking they're worthless. I am, however, disappointed in a lot of her writing. And that clearly isn't universal, as many posters are very happy with what she's written, and satisfied with prose and her message. She obviously wasn't universally successful there, but she wasn't universally a failure either. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 17:58:02 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:58:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178695 > Betsy Hp: > Why do you believe that this wasn't JKR's intent? And to be clear, > I'm not asking this question with any sort of hostility or to set up > a zinger or anything. It's just, I've seen folks say, "JKR would > never write something like that" to defend against the theory that > she *did* actually write something like that. And I'm wondering > where that conviction comes from. We don't know JKR personally (at > least, no one on the list has said they're close personal friends) > and while we do have her interviews, they are often contradictory > with each other *and* with the books. > > And at least one of the examples Lizzyben used (the treatment of > goblins) is backed by a JKR interview in which she says that only > goblin fanatics would protest the Trio's deception over the sword (or > words to that effect). Which would mean, I'd think, that yes we > *are* supposed to look down on goblins on the whole. > > It's hard to answer your questions because I just don't know. But the books, when not overanalyzed the way we do on these boards, has a pretty clear message. The Slytherin thing doesn't read to me the way it does to you and Lizzyben. I don't think it has the depth and complexity that many of us assumed it did earlier on, but I think she created a group that has corrupt ideals. She places prejudice, blood superiority, unchecked ambition, as well as a wealth of negative personality traits in one place, and associates them together. Mean bullies who hate poor people and grow up to be killers whose goal is blood purity... there are exceptions and complications in fiction, but these are the ideas she puts together. These are the 'bad' people. It may not have worked for you if you see it just as wrong to discriminate against the discriminator, but as a straight lesson that bigotry is wrong, I think it works. I think it is the message most people get from the books. And her interviews are not THAT contradictory. Yes, she could be going out there and lying, I suppose, when she says she's against prejudice and for love and all that. But I tend to believe her, though I don't agree with the way she went about it at all times. As for goblins... I wonder if it's not more a misunderstanding of fantasy. The idea of ownership being linked to the creator is not JKR's idea. But she, like most of us, disagrees with that concept, and, while she put it in the books, perhaps she wasn't able to put it in the books in an equal sense. She put it there as a nod to a concept present in fantasy, but also believed it was wrong and stupid and so didn't allow it to have moral bearing. That doesn't mean goblins are a representative of how it's ok to treat people who are different than you badly. It means she created goblins that are selfish and mean, like the goblins of many other stories. Again, these things don't have to work for you, and they often don't work for me, but it also doesn't suggest to me that she was trying to state something other than what appears to be the most obvious message of the series. I don't read the hate that you do. I think a big part of that comes from not caring about Slytherin, and pretty much thinking they're worthless. I am, however, disappointed in a lot of her writing. And that clearly isn't universal, as many posters are very happy with what she's written, and satisfied with prose and her message. She obviously wasn't universally successful there, but she wasn't universally a failure either. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 18:00:28 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:00:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178696 Prep0strus: Hit some button accidently, and my post was off! Sorry for the lack of attribution... I guess I was finished enough, as the suddenness of losing it blew whatever I was saying out of my head... I just know that while I look at the elf storyline and wonder why it was ever included if it were going to simply fade away without purpose, it doesn't mean I look at the whole series and see a message of hate and discrimination. ~Adam From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 30 18:22:30 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:22:30 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich)/Noblesse Oblige In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178697 Carol: > Harry has the moral obligation of noblesse oblige, as Magpie said, though she apparently doesn't approve of the concept--the duty of those in power (in this case wizards who own House-Elves) to behave responsibly, honorably, and generously to those who are below them in rank or power, including servants. It would be cruel to deprive the aged and eccentric Kreacher of kind treatment, a home, and the opportunity to serve wizards that gives House-Elves so much pleasure (as we see with the reformed Kreacher after Harry gives him the locket). Magpie: I'm not bothered by noblesse oblige as a reality, exactly. You are sometimes going to find yourself in a position of power over someone, or a position of advantage, and if you are in that position I think you do have a moral obligation to treat them well and be responsible for them. Power imbalance exists and it's always better for the person with the power to be responsible. That's a fine thing for people to learn. But the term is also associated with the idea that certain things make you inherently superior to other people and that's what I disagree with--and what I see absolutely set up in the Wizarding World. One can't make the objection that one would with real people, for instance by saying hey, people of that race are not different from us, because the author has created races--or humanoid species if you will--who actually are set up to be inferior. It's the same problem as we always have in discussions--it's not bad to treat people as unequal to you if they are...but is it a plea for tolerance? (It's not just other species, of course, that Harry is naturally superior to. I think he's got a paternalistic relationship to those of lower human classes as well.) He's born into a superior position to other humans or humanoids. House Elves really can't take care of themselves. They really do live to serve. It really is either slavery or drunk in a gutter. So it's just Harry's duty to have them wait on him, for their own good. And yet she says the House Elves=slavery. It's really only the fact that she's writing in 2007 and seems a normal person that makes me try to figure out a way that this isn't an argument about slavery being right for some races in that case. It could be just as easily be a nostalgic world based on somebody's memories of growing up with slaves. Nothing in the text shows the slavery as inherently wrong, only certain (easily spotted, really) masters as wrong. > Betsy Hp: > I share your confusion. Honestly, I do. At first when I finished > DH, sickened and angry, I decided JKR was plain crazy, filled with > fury and hate and this is what came of it. But now... You can write > a first draft in a storm of emotion, but did JKR really pour through > her drafts and consciously *decide* to leave all the petty hate > intact? > > I mean, as Lizzyben points out, the message that the way of the WW > was right all along is pretty darn consistent. One or two story- > lines falling by the wayside, maybe, but all of them? So yeah, it > leaves me wondering what the heck JKR was thinking. > > What *was* her intent? Magpie: Good question--that I can't answer, of course, because I'm not in her head. What it almost feels like to me is that there's a clash of things going on. Elkins wrote about this years ago, pointing out the almost schizophrenic nature in parts of the book, for instance, the way many stories start with a right skewering of the Dursleys for their attitudes when those very attitudes are celebrated at Hogwarts. (As I said, I think the books end with Harry pretty much just becoming Vernon--albeit a far superior, more deserving and most importantly *wizard* Vernon.) It sometimes feels like the reason bigotry is important in the story is because it's nowadays a shorthand for "evil." I mean, the story isn't doing much in exploring bigotry, it's just making it the evil. The good guys don't have to think about bigotry, they just have to recognize it in Slytherins who "are" bigotry. (Hagrid might call centaurs mules or refer to Filch as a sneakin' squib or look down on Muggles, but he'd never slip up and say "Mudblood" and he doesn't murder people). But we're not getting any view into what's really behind this. In fact for me one of the biggest clunkers in DH was that ridiculous "they're stealing magic" idea, which didn't come naturally out of anything we'd seen before. It seemed like in the end it was just a mish-mosh of different racist attitudes rather than a coherent one. So it felt like, for me, the idea of "Nazis are bad" was just there to give some character to the evil without bigotry itself being explored. Perhaps if she were an American writing in the 50s the Slytherins would have been Communist-like instead of Nazi-like. Well, Nazi and snobbish and cowardly etc., but the philosophy was Nazi-like. It felt like the author was really far more interested in something else--the individual triumphing over "bad people" maybe? I'm not sure. Because ultimately I think if you really look at the series starts with Harry being reviled and kept from the good life and ends with him winning it for himself. (It might almost have been a Rags to Riches story rather than Good vs. Evil...perhaps it still could be.) The squabbles between magical species add color to the WW but despite the desire for many critics to link them together I just don't think that holds up. The book starts with this awful guy (Vernon) who hates Harry controlling Harry's world. Harry gets a better world, one which is his by right of birth. He triumphs in a number of different ways, including over people who are mean to him and want to keep him down. In the end he's got a devoted band of followers and his enemies acknowledge his superiority, they join him or slink away in disgrace. And now he's happily bringing his kids to school, master of his world--one not sketched out as much broader than Vernon's and not fundamentally changed from the way he first encountered it. (I remember someone once bringing up the question of why Harry's kids don't seem to know that he's famous and why...it's a funny question since whatever he's told them, shouldn't being stared at be normal for them by now? But then I found myself thinking--why assume these kids have ever left their tight family circle before?) Harry's not being a bigot shows that he's truly worthy of his status. He's the best of his class, instinctively treating his inferiors as a gentleman should. Harry's world is also a sort of nostalgic one, and carries with it for me a lot of obvious baggage from the time it sort of reflects. Lealess' description is exactly how it seems to me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178668 This isn't something I thought myself into, it's the way the books totally come across to me, especially after DH. So the Harry who goes up to his cozy four poster (which I have no trouble believing would be waiting for him) and considers having the servant bring sahib a sandwich there is the natural victor of that opening set up. Ultimately it seems like what's cringeworthy about the statue at the MoM isn't that it's false but that it's vulgar to build statues to yourself about it. It's that clash of modern attitudes on a nostalgic world. Of course it's hard to reconcile the anti-bigotry message with attitudes that are now usually seen as linked to bigotry. There's something very bizarre about taking a 20th century boy from the suburbs, saying he's going to enter a world and have an adventure that's anti-racism...and then have him wind up with an attitude towards other races (and I am using "race" there to refer to other species, since they're all humanoid) that imo is far more like that of a 19th century white male than the attitude he started out with (and I don't think that's a clever way of challenging my own attitudes about sweat shops or some other modern question). He even takes a step up from just not caring about the House Elf question by owning one. What attitudes has he learned that would actually help him back in his original world? Probably the stuff about relying on your friends and standing up to bullies. I don't think the stuff with different species says anything very coherent about real life inequalities, or presents it as a problem with no easy solution, because there doesn't seem to be any need for a solution. They current solution is working fine. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 18:27:07 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:27:07 +0800 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4727777B.6000406@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178698 Steph: > Part of the problem here is that, with the exception of the > Epilogue, which is just a small snapshot of the future, we > actually don't know what happened to the house elves after > Voldemort's defeat. 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. I agree it seems a bit over the top to accuse JKR of nefariousness or hidden evil messages when disorganization would seem a more than adequate explanation. --CJ From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 30 18:48:07 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:48:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178699 Alla: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? Potioncat: There is a big difference between what 17-year-old Fred and George were allowed to do for the Order (clean the HQ) and what 17-year-old Ron and Hermione were allowed (to risk their lives). I think she was trying to avoid the whole thing all together. It wasn't the best way to handle it, but as a mother of 17-and-18-year- olds, I can understand how worried she was. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? Potioncat: I think he was trying to believe it. While it made for an interesting look at Ron, it also reflected fans who couldn't believe that Sirius or DD were really dead. (Snape fans don't fit this example because at this point in the story no one has any reason to think Snape is dead. And, later when we do have reasons, the best of us can come up with proof that he's alive and well and drinking meade with DD and Sirius.) > 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? Potioncat: No, not at all. Given how difficult a FC is, I don't see how it could just rotate around 20 people. Who would be the SK at any given time? OR were they all SKs at all times? If Moody set up charms to protect against Snape, then Snape had to have gone back to 12 GP pretty quickly after leaving Hogwarts. > > 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? Potioncat: It's in keeping with the Christian theme that runs through HP. Having a soul that survives is of paramount importance to many of us. > > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > wedding? Potioncat: I thought Hogwarts. I was sure the diadem in the RoR was important. > > 8. Insert your question here. Oh, someone else did and all my ideas in response were blasted out of the water by good, sound canon-fire. Thanks Alla, for some fun questions. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 30 19:21:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:21:02 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178700 > > > >>lizzyben: > > > > > > House elves subplot - Introduction: Harry first wants to free > > > Dobby, Hermione forms SPEW to fight for house elf rights. > > > Resolution: The only free house elf dies, Harry accepts his role > > > as slave-owner, Hermione gives up on house elf rights to accept > > > the status quo. > > > >>Pippin: > > This is a highly selective reading, IMO. The issue of refusing to > > benefit from slave labor was raised and dispatched in GoF, with > > Hermione's abortive hunger strike. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And the issue of House Elves being freed was dispatched in DH with > the death of Dobby and with Harry's embracing the life of a slave- > owner. How does this make lizzyben's reading selective? Pippin: It excludes the part where Hermione says she wants to take SPEW further, in OOP, and the part where she tells Scrimgeour she means to do some good in the world, in DH. Those plans did not revolve around Dobby, and there's no reason to think they died with him. > > > >>Pippin: > > There is no simple heartening answer, because there is no simple > > heartening answer in the real world. > > > > Betsy Hp: > But there *is* a simple heartening answer in the books. Owning a > slave is perfectly fine if the slave wants to be owned. RL is a bit > messier, but JKR has created a world where everything is neat. > Kreature is happy to be owned and Harry is happy to own him. Cue > credits. Pippin: "I told you not to call her Mudblood!' snarled Harry, but the elf was already punishing himself: He fell to the ground and banged his forehead on the floor. "Stop him -- stop him!" Hermione cried. "Oh, don't you see now how sick it is, the way they've got to obey?" --DH ch 10 Regulus, who died to save Kreacher, ordered him to destroy the locket. And Kreacher, who could not do it, "punished himself, he tried again, he punished himself, he tried again." DH ch 10 Would you please explain to me what's simple and heartening and perfectly fine about that? Seriously? Because I don't see it. It's sick that House Elves have to punish themselves if they disobey, and it's shown in the books that being owned by a good master will not change that. > > >>Pippin: > > Neville, who has *not* mistreated goblins, recovers the sword. The > > sword does properly belong in Gryffindor hands, and Harry, not > > acting like a true Gryffindor, loses it. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And only a "goblin fanatic" would question the idea that wizards are > perfectly correct in their views and goblins are wrong. Pippin: And only a wizard fanatic would suggest that wizards are perfectly correct in their treatment of goblins and never wrong. "Goblins have good reason to dislike wizards, Ron," said Hermione. "They've been treated brutally in the past." That Griphook happens to be lying or mistaken about the sword does not mean that goblins have no legitimate complaints about wizards. That's right there in the text too. "There has been fault on both sides. I would never claim that wizards have been innocent." > > > >>Lizzyben: > > > In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these > > > magical creatures, to learning that they actually should have a > > > second-class status in wizarding society. > > > >>Pippin: > > In every subplot, Harry and Hermione go from apathy or ignorant > > hope to the knowledge that achieving a more equitable society will > > be difficult, but improvements can and should be made. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Where or where do you get this Pippin? Seriously, some straight > forward, non-symbolic text that clearly states that the state of the > WW bothers Harry and he's going to do something about it though it > may take years. Something concrete please. Pippin: "I've said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat House Elves. Well, Voldemort did...and so did Sirius." Harry had no retort. As he watched Kreacher sobbing on the floor, he remembered what Dumbledore had said to him, mere hours after Sirius's death: I do not think Sirius ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's...." So, if you see House Elves as beings with feelings as acute as a human's, how can you be okay with a system that makes them punish themselves? Do I have to quote all the text where Hermione talks about how the WW could be improved? Did she die at the end of DH? I must have missed it. > Betsy Hp: > > You state this sort of reading is subversive but then you finish off > by saying it doesn't matter. I find this frustrating. (That may be > coming through. ) If the reading is subversive show me evidence > *in DH* that Harry is fighting the powers that be, not becoming one > of them. Pippin: Where is the evidence that he's becoming one of them? That he thinks about Kreacher getting him a sandwich? Suppose Harry gets his own sandwich -- he goes to the kitchen, which is cleaned and maintained by House Elves, he gets some bread which has been baked or purchased by House Elves, he spreads it with a filling which was prepared by House Elves, he puts it on a dish which has been washed by House Elves, from a cupboard where it was stored by House Elves-- if he thinks by making his own sandwich he's not dependent on Elf labor, he's a bloody hypocrite. Of course he could leave the WW -- but then he's in no position to help the Elves at all. > > > >>Pippin: > > The bigots are not right any more than Hagrid was right about > > Slytherin, or Ron was right about poisonous mushrooms not > > changing their spots. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Gah! But Hagrid *was* right as per DH. Ron *was* right as per DH. > SLYTHERIN WALKED OUT! How do you turn that text around? Because the > way it stands, the way I read it, Slytherins are bad and cannot > change. They are poison and cannot be trusted in times of trouble. Pippin: If Hagrid was right, then Peter Pettigrew was a Slytherin since there never was a dark wizard who wasn't in Slytherin, and Sirius was a bad person because he had the same blood as Draco Malfoy. The Slytherins walked out because McGonagall told them to leave. How is that treachery? They followed her orders, but they should have shown their loyalty by disobeying? Excuse me? What kind of convoluted reasoning is that? Pippin From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Tue Oct 30 19:32:45 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:32:45 -0000 Subject: a sandwich In-Reply-To: <4727777B.6000406@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178701 CJ: 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? Tiffany: I was able to speculate on this a few days ago with another Potter lover at the UofM (Minnesota campus) & we both agreed that the house- elves will possibly not change very much & just be house-elves. I personally like that JKR left a lot of things open-ended & up in the air. I like a lot of closure to things, but with the way DH ended, an open-ended conclusion seemed to fit very well. I think that the VIM wasn't so much the actual house-elves themselves but the themes & issues associated with the house-elves. It reminds me a lot like the thread on "the fat lady", I didn't see her as a big issue when compared with the overall themes & issues associated with her. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 19:45:41 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:45:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178702 zgirnius: Thank you, Alla, for your admiranly concise summary and interesting questions! > Alla: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? zgirnius: I expected it, found it touching, and loved Harry's sarcastic remark about it to Ginny: > DH: > "And then what does she think's going to happen? Someone else might kill off Voldemort while she's holding us here making vol-au-vents?" Zara: It has nothing to do with your question, but I thought this was a nice understated Harry/Ginny moment, and sets up their conversation in her bedroom on Harry's birthday, coming up in the next chapter, nicely. > Alla: > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? zgirnius: Within story, Ron did not wantto believe Moody was dead. External to the story, I think Rowling was having a bit of fun. The specifics of the death, and the discussion thereof, are extremely close to the many theories offered by fans about Dumbledore's possible survival: > DH: > "But Bill saw him hit by the Killing Curse," said Harry. "Yeah, but Bill was under attack too," said Ron. "How can hge be sure what he saw?" zgirnius: Insert favotite pre-DH theory that Harry only thought he saw an AK, Snape sneakily cast something else and just faked the green jet. > DH: "Even if the Killing Curse missed, Mad-Eye still fell about a thousand feet," said Hermione... zgirnius: And the Astronomy Tower is the very tallest in Hogwarts, of course. At least hundreds of feet above the ground. > DH: "He could have used a Shield Charm - " "Fleur said his wand was blasted out of his hand," siad Harry. zgirnius: Dumbledore, too, was disarmed before his fall. This passage might also serve the purpose of causing readers who were not avid listeners/readers of her interviews (and thus aware DD would not be pulling a Gandalf) to wonder about Albus, especially combined with the flash of a blue eye Harry saw in the broken mirror in a previous chapter. > Alla: > 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?. zgirnius: I agree with those who have pointed out that it is consistent with all previous book canon. > Alla: > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? zgirnius: I do not think Ron and the others were possessed, they were just affected (perhaps akin to the way Harry's scar affects his moods at times. He is always "wearing" it.) > Alla: > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? zgirnius: I was touched to read of the arrangements Ron and Hermione had made to be able to join Harry, particularly the ways they tried to protect their families. It showed me that they had thought it through, and had a realiztic appraisal of the anger they would be facing. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 30 19:55:31 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:55:31 -0000 Subject: JKR and JRRT In-Reply-To: <47274EA4.2050704@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > Geoff Bannister: > > > "Just because you haven't got a body anymore you > > can't go round sulking and wanting to rule the world." Lee: > Just to correct one myth perpetuated by the movie (and to move this > thread completely OT): of course Sauron had a body; on what did he wear > the Ring? And you'll recall Gollum specifically mentioning Sauron's > missing finger. Geoff: Yes. However, there is perhaps a parallel here with Voldemort who was unbodied after the Godric's Hollow attempt on Harry's life at Hallowe'en 1981. As GOF records: '"My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice and it rebounded on me. Aaah... pain beyond pain, my friends, nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still, I was alive."' (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.566 UK edition) ...and we also have: 'But Sauron also was thrown down and with the hilt-shard of Narsil, Isildur cut the Ruling Ring from the hand of Sauron and took it for his own. Then Sauron was for that time vanquished and he forsook his body and his spirit fled far away and hid in waste places; and he took no visible shape again for many long years.' (The Silmarillion, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age") Sound familiar? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 19:57:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:57:02 -0000 Subject: WHOSE DD is he? (Was: Re: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178704 CJ wrote: > > HP, the WW, DD -- they're all part of a fictional creation which > doesn't exist outside the pages of the books. > Rowena replied: > > It would perhaps be more accurate to say they don't exist outside JKR's imagination. Carol responds: That statement (that they don't exist outside JKR's imagination) was only true before the books were published (or rather, before the first editor read them and they became part of his or her imagination). Granted, JKR created them, but the moment they entered other readers' minds via the printed word, they ceased to exist solely in JKR's mind. CJ's (Lee's) statement is closer to correct, in my view--they don't exist outside the pages of the books--except in the imaginations of the readers, and on film, and in fanfic, and in various permutations all arising from the words printed on the pages of the books (in many different languages). They have long ceased to exist solely in JKR's imagination. Otherwise, why would we be writing about them? Dumbledore and Snape and Harry and all the rest exist in *our* minds as well as JKR's, and in the minds of everyone who has ever read the books exists there, just as Winnie the Pooh and Captain Ahab and Elizabeth Bennett and Hamlet and Apollo and Frodo and Huckleberry Finn and thousands of other literary and mythological and dramatic and otherwise fictional characters exist there but never exactly the same for any two readers. JKR has created characters that live in the minds of her readers, and that's certainly a great accomplishment. But she has no more right to control how her readers perceive them, IMO, than the authors of the U.S. Constitution had to control how future Supreme Courts would interpret it. Nor could she do so even if she had the right because of the great variety of possible responses determined by age, culture, personality, mental capacity, education, and personal experience of her many readers. Other authors have understood that their creations are greater than they are and have not attempted to restrict interpretation to their own intentions, particularly intentions that are not detectable within the work itself. As Percy Bysshe Shelley said of a great poem (meaning a great work of literature), "Veil after veil may be undrawn, and the inmost naked beauty of the meaning never exposed. A great poem is a fountain forever overflowing with the waters of wisdom and delight; and after one person and one age has exhausted all its divine effluence which their peculiar relations enable them to share, another and yet another succeeds, and new relations are ever developed, the source of an unforeseen and an unconceived delight." JKR's books are hardly literature on the scale that Shelley was talking about, but nevertheless, critics and perceptive readers can find different levels of meaning by analyzing various elements of her works (the depiction of House-Elves at the moment, religious imagery or Harry's development or any of the various conflicts or narrative technique being just a sampling of possibilities. Maybe, in honor of Halloween, which plays a rather important role in most of the books, we could examine the effects that she uses to create horror or terror in some of the spookier chapters--Nagini!Bathilda. Shiver!!!). Th point is, an author's intentions, especially those revealed after the fact and not detectable, or only barely detectable to readers alert to certain possible interpretations, should not be the only or even the primary lens through which we view a literary work. Tolkien, for example, made clear that he was not writing allegory or sending a message. He was just writing a very long story, which he regarded as a segment of feigned history: "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. . . . I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers." Odd and unfortunate that JKR doesn't seem to understand the concept of "applicability." The story and characters really are *not* hers any longer, except as far as copyright laws extend. They are as much a part of our experience as the places we have visited, which exist in our minds separately from the physical location we visited and inseparably from our experiences during the visit, which are different from those of anyone else. (My London is assuredly not the London of someone who has lived there, nor is their London mine.) JKR can no more control the reaction of any of her millions (billions?) of readers to her books, or their interpretation of a particular character or incident than I can control your reaction to my fruitcake if you were to eat a slice. (Bboyminn, with his prejudice against fruitcake, would probably hate it, and all my assertions that I worked hard on it and *intended* it to be delicious would be for nothing. :-p) Seriously, I realize that my analogy is flawed (fruitcake isn't really subject to interpretation to the extent that literature is, though a food critic might dispute that remark), but the various interpretations of any scene in HP or any work of literature on this list alone show how unsupportable JKR's position is. Once a work of art or literature is published, it becomes public property (with regard to interpretation, not use of the author's creations in a published work). I'm free to see nothing but squiggles and splatters in a Jackson Pollock painting that others, for whatever reason, see as a masterpiece, regardless of whatever Pollock himself may have said about his intentions regarding that particular painting. And Shakespeare's or Chaucer's intention of (merely) retelling an old story in a new and interesting way by no means limits the possible interpretations of their works in their own time(s) or ours. JKR's (unstated) intention in finishing the series was to meet a contractual obligation and to make more money. She may also have intended (despite earlier statements to the contrary) to convey a moral or political message. But readers will find their own meaning (or lack of it) in the books regardless of what JKR intended, not to mention that intentions change, stories and characters take unexpected directions (even Lockhart is more than a caricature of someone JKR used to know, and Snape is far more than that former Chemistry teacher dressed in black robes and given magical abilities), and intentions, even when they're relevant to the reader's interpretation, are not always apparent in the finished work, nor are all intentions conscious. Much of what goes into a literary work comes from the author's *unconscious* assumptions. Stored memories that we didn't know we had appear, transformed, in what we write, whether it's a novel, a poem, or a post to HPfGu. No two readers imagine exactly the same Dumbledore or Snape or Harry or Kreacher or even Cornelius Fudge. Our interpretation is based on an interaction between our own minds and the words on the page, with the author's intentions (surprising us through withholding information or through various forms of misdirection, amusing us, scaring us, moving us) succeeding or failing depending in part on her skill and in part on the individual reader's personality and beliefs (and skill at detecting misdirection). But to say "he is what he is" shows a huge degree of misunderstanding of the process of reading. "He" (or "she")--any given character, not just Dumbledore--is what the words on the page say he is, shaped by the reader's own assumptions, preconceptions, processing of previous information, awareness or lack of awareness of the limitations of point of view. He or she is *not* what JKR says he is--except to her and to readers for whom her intentions for a given character succeeded. Is Snape a "deeply horrible person"? Not to me or to many other readers. Was that ever really JKR's intention, or did she merely intend to make him *appear* to be "deeply horrible" so that we would be surprised by the depth of his love and the immensity of his courage? And what about Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness"? Does any reader (well, I do know of one--winks at Tonks_OP) really still hold that view? Did JKR, who now calls him Machiavellian, ever hold it herself? Can quintessential goodness and Machiavellian means by reconciled and is that what JKR wants us to see in DD? Do her intentions even matter? I say they don't. The books exist to be read, enjoyed (or hated) and interpreted, and her words should not, IMO, control or limit our freedom of interpretation. Only what's on the page should limit us, always with the awareness that what we think we "see" and "hear" may not mean what we think it means because we're limited to Harry's pov (or a dramatic pov preventing us from entering the characters' minds), and the characters (not just Harry) are sometimes mistaken in their assumptions (or telling something less than the full truth). Even knowing what we know from "The Prince's Tale" about Snape, we can still read "Spinner's End" differently. For that matter, we can and do read "The Prince's Tale" differently --regardless of what JKR says about Snape. There's no reason, then, that we have to read the DD/GG relationship in light of JKR's post-DH revelation. It still reads like primarily an intellectual infatuation, with two brilliant and arrogant boys seeing each other as mirrors of their own grandiose ideas (and DD blinding himself to GG's faults as Severus blinded himself to Mulciber's and Avery's) with no sexuality necessary to my understanding of the work, or to a teenager's reading of it, except to the degree that JKR's pronouncement colors my reading. And the aged DD of the HP series still seems as asexual to me as he does to Harry. As an aside, Snape seems asexual, too--celibate, repressed--with his canonical love for Lily as explanation for his buttoned-up personality, with sarcasm and an occasional outburst of anger as his only release. I hope JKR never tells us that he had a loveless fling with some other woman before Lily's death. That would ruin my interpretation, or my imagined view, of his personality. Really, JKR, I'd rather not know what you think may have happened off-page to him or to anyone else. I don't want to know whether Tonks and Remus or Bill and Fleur consummated their relationship before marriage, either. Really, I don't. Such information would detract from rather than add to my pleasure in reading the books. And, given that many of the readers are children, I don't think it would be appropriate to reveal those particular details, either. At any rate, to the extent that I can, I choose to ignore JKR's revelations. If it's not in the books, it's not "real" or "true." (there are enough flaws and inconsistencies in the books themselves without bringing interviews into the interpretation of the books unless the point is to discuss whether JKR succeeded or failed in transferring a particular intention from her mind to the page, which, for me, is not relevant. For those who haven't yet read it, I highly recommend Jeffrey Weiss's article from the Dallas Morning News, "Harry Potter and the Author Who Wouldn't Shut Up": http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-rowlingcolumn_1024gl.State.Edition1.2292bdc.html Carol, who doesn't accept Coleridge's dismissal of "Kubla Khan" as nothing but a vision produced by opium, either, whether or not opium was involved From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 21:12:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:12:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178705 Alla: > This chapter discussion is prepared in a REALLY short period of time as an emergency substitution, so please do not judge too harshly, guys. Carol: Great job, Alla. Thanks for keeping the discussions going so ably. > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pyjamas > Carol: "Pyjamas"! I'd forgotten that the British spelling used a "y." > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in this chapter? Carol: Since she doesn't know about the Horcruxes and they cant tell her, she can't possibly realize how important their mission is or that no one else can do it. (Even Aberforth, who doesn't know them, thinks much the same thing.) Her concern, like any mother's (and she feels a motherly concern for Harry and Hermione, too) is her children's safety. It's hard to see seventeen- or eighteen-year-olds as grown up, even with four sons who have already left home and established their own lives at roughly that age, especially in a time of great danger when all the hands on Molly's clock are pointing to Mortal Peril (seems that she's given up consulting it for that reason). Also, of course, the Order members have just risked their lives (and one has died) to bring Harry to safety. Understandably, she doesn't want that effort wasted. I understand exactly how Molly feels and would probably feel much the same way. But I also see the futility of her efforts; teenagers who are determined to carry out a plan will find a way to do so, especially if they're staying in the same house. Even putting Harry in Bill's room and Lupin in Ron's would not have stopped them. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be dead? If not, why did he argue that? Carol: Without a body, it's possible to believe that someone isn't dead, but I don't think he really believed that. He was just stating what he wanted to believe, hoping to be supported in his denial of Mad-Eye's death despite the distance he must have fallen and an eye witness to the AK. I'm pretty sure that JKR had the denials of DD's death in mind when she wrote that scene--an AK, a fall from the tower without a wand, and yet some readers hoped that he wasn't dead (including me, at times). > 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? Carol: Well, no. It certainly didn't occur to me that the surviving Order members (including the kids) would be joint Secret Keepers, diluting the spell. It's hard to say whether JKR had this tidbit in mind all along or thought it up specifically for this book (along with Apparition requiring a wand and the relationship between a wand and its owner). I do understand that they would want to take precautions in case the supposed traitor Snape found a way to convey the information to the DEs, especially since, as Lupin later points out, the contents of Sirius's will would have been accessible to the public, so 12 GP would be watched regardless of whether it was the suspected HQ (and given Kreacher's revelations in OoP, how could it not be?). Anyway, I don't think that the spell would have stopped working, but it would only prevent Snape (or a real traitor) from speaking the address, but with Kreacher there and no Sirius or DD, it was probably wise to change the HQ regardless. (What I don't understand is why stronger protective spells weren't placed on the Burrow, but plot overrides plausibility, I suppose.) 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? Carol: Hm. Good question. Hermione says that the soul bit can temporarily inhabit a person who becomes close to it emotionally (Umbridge, as if she needed help from a bit of LV when she's already eager to carry out his will?), but that doesn't seem to be the case with Ron. He's wearing it and it senses his thoughts, certainly having more influence over him than over Harry or Hermione, but I don't think it was actually possessing him. If it had done so, he would have performed actions that he didn't remember afterwards rather than merely dwelling on his suspicions and jealousies and inadequacies and becoming spiteful and irritable. > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you think of the sacrifices they are making? Carol: Well, I'm not thrilled with Hermione's plan for sending her parents to Australia (I hope she forged them some credentials, so that they'll be able to set up a dental practice there, assuming they remember that they're dentists, but it's a huge sacrifice for her to give up school and go with Harry, and the rest of her planning is impeccable (excpet for food). Ron's ghoul plan seems far-fetched, but at least it doesn't hurt his parents, and his giving up school is no great sacrifice. I'm sure he'd rather be with Harry on what he thinks will be a great adventure, a chivalrous quest. (BTW, apropos of nothing, Sir Cagogan strikes me as a parody of Gryffindor chivalry.) I'm not altogether certain that Ron is making any sacrifices at this point. He has no conception of what will really be involved (or how really clueless Harry is with regard to finding and destroying the Horcruxes). > > 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? Carol: I thought that the information was crucial (though I don't think that either Harry or Ron fully processed it). She was not just saying that a soul bit can't survive if its container is destroyed, she was saying that the soul within a human being (even if part of it has been placed within a Horcrux) is eternal and indestructible (in contrast to the bits removed to Horcruxes, which can be destroyed). So, essentially, Ron's body can be killed with no effect on his immortal soul, whereas the destruction of a Horcrux's "body" utterly destroys the soul bit. It's crucial information paving the way for the state of LV's mutilated soul at the end of the novel and for the concept of the afterlife, reiterated by Hermione (a Christian?) in the graveyard scene in "Godric's Hollow" and illustrated through the temporary resurrection of beloved souls in "The Forest Again" and the appearance of Dead!DD in "King's Cross." We've been told that death is the next great adventure and that there are voices beyond the Veil; we've also been told or shown that LV's quest for *earthly* immortality, trying to keep his soul alive on earth, is unnatural and evil. It all fits together, IMO, with only the soul bit in Harry being slightly problematic, along with the fate of souls sucked by Dementors, which seems to conflict with the idea that nothing can destroy a soul, even one "split" by murder or fragmented through Horcrux-making. We have our hint, too, that LV can repair the damage through remorse (though perhaps only while the Horcruses still exist, along with their respective soul bits). Anyway, I found that particular section of the chapter informative and edifying. > > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the wedding? Carol: 12 GP. I thought that surely Harry or Hermione would remember the locket that no one could open in OoP. And Hogwarts would have been the next logical place to look. (I never anticipated supposed-DE!Snape as headmaster. I thought they'd visit DD's portrait and use the RoR in their search.) > > 8. Insert your question here. Carol: What did you think of the Delacours? I wondered why the Veelalike Madame Delacour ("Apolline" suggests that she was beautiful from birth) would marry the very ordinary Monsieur Delacour. (Was she following her Veela mother's example?) Not sure what I thought of her stepping in to clean Molly's oven with a "householdy" spell. I'm sure it was meant as a kindness, but Molly might take it as a reflection on her own housekeeping skills. (Of course, the skills in question were really Ron's and she was just keeping him busy and away from Harry, but Madame Delacour couldn't know that.) And I also wonder whether the Delacours and their descendants will have only daughters (with sheets of silvery hair) for at least the next few generations. (Victoire, anyone?) Carol, wondering if JKR was envisioning the ghoul in pajamas as she wrote the spattergroit scene in OoP From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 21:41:03 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:41:03 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178706 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It's just, I've seen folks say, "JKR would never write something > > like that" to defend against the theory that she *did* actually > > write something like that. And I'm wondering where that > > conviction comes from. > > > >>Prep0strus: > It's hard to answer your questions because I just don't know. But > the books, when not overanalyzed the way we do on these boards, has > a pretty clear message. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I don't think I "overanalyzed". I pretty much concluded DH summed up the series as "Harry's cool, anyone he dislikes sucks" (which is pretty much the definition of bigotry) as I was finishing it up. (Not a fun conclusion, I assure you. ) The analyzing afterwords just cemented it for me. Especially the attempts to (as I saw it) wave away the hate stuff. The arguments seem to depend so much on stuff outside the text it seemed more like rationalization than actual textual analyzation. > >>Prep0strus: > The Slytherin thing doesn't read to me the way it does to you and > Lizzyben. I don't think it has the depth and complexity that many > of us assumed it did earlier on, but I think she created a group > that has corrupt ideals. She places prejudice, blood superiority, > unchecked ambition, as well as a wealth of negative personality > traits in one place, and associates them together. > Betsy Hp: Oddly enough, I agree with you. I actually think those of us who agree the Slytherins are supposed to be seen as overall bad eggs that are best kept apart from their betters are on the same wavelength. Where we separate, I think, is whether we buy that (a) the Slytherins really are as bad as DH concludes they are, and (b) whether this is the sort of thing that can really be determined at age eleven. With issue (a) I think JKR meant for us to hate the Slytherins from Draco's introduction. That's where I agree that I must go a bit subversive because I quite liked wee little Draco. (This isn't a place where I *chose* to go subversive, btw, I honestly thought I was following JKR's lead.) But I agree that your read that Slytherins are basically worthless is the one JKR ended the series with. (Slytherins with power move from being worthless to being out and out dangerous. So the wise thing is to keep them separate, marked, and down.) With issue (b) I think as long as you're cool with Slytherins being the baddies then the Sorting is just a form of story-telling. Of course it's not something anyone could do in real life, but for the sake of the story, all those destined to be nasty folk are discovered at age eleven. But if you don't (as I don't) buy the first premise (Slytherins are just bad, full stop) than the second premise becomes rather horrifying. Children trapped into playing the role of bad guys, never allowed to grow, never allowed to change. But then it does mean JKR was not writing a story about inclusion or love. She was writing a popcorn tale of heroes vs. villains, no moral lesson need apply. Which is fine (I personally think the story failed on that level too, just from plot issues) but trying to wrench a morality tale out of what boiled down to one giant, really stretched out, battle makes for, IMO, odd morals. > >>Prep0strus: > > And her interviews are not THAT contradictory. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, I thought her stuff about uniting the houses and her dwelling on the fact that the four houses represent the four elements is completely contradicted by the text. There's no such thing as an "evil" element. So unless you want to try and show how Slytherin *isn't* the bad house, that's an out and out contradiction. So is her stuff about house-elves paralleling RL slavery. Frankly, rereading her interviews gives me the impression she thought she'd write one sort of story and then changed her mind mid-stream. Which explains both the Slytherin disconnect that I saw and the ending celebrating that MoM statue that Harry at first thought distasteful and but then decided to emulate. > >>Prep0strus: > > As for goblins... I wonder if it's not more a misunderstanding of > fantasy. > > That doesn't mean goblins are a representative of how it's ok to > treat people who are different than you badly. It means she > created goblins that are selfish and mean, like the goblins of many > other stories. Betsy Hp: IIRC, JKR made pretty clear that she's not all that into fantasy stuff generally. So I think her goblins are her goblins, not a commentary on other goblins of other stories. And in her world goblins are greedy, untrustworthy, and just about as worthless as Slytherins. Again, that statue at the Ministry is correct. Not so much that goblins would *fawn* over wizards, but that they do need to be kept in their place. > >>Prep0strus: > > Again, these things don't have to work for you, and they often > don't work for me, but it also doesn't suggest to me that she was > trying to state something other than what appears to be the most > obvious message of the series. > Betsy Hp: Right. Wizards are number one, some wizards are better than others, and Harry's the best wizard of all. White picket fences for everyone worthy of them. It's when we try and paste this idea of love and inclusion on top of the story that I think things get a bit hinky and we have to ignore actual story-lines. > >>Magpie: > > It sometimes feels like the reason bigotry is important in the story > is because it's nowadays a shorthand for "evil." I mean, the story > isn't doing much in exploring bigotry, it's just making it the evil. > The good guys don't have to think about bigotry, they just have to > recognize it in Slytherins who "are" bigotry. (Hagrid might call > centaurs mules or refer to Filch as a sneakin' squib or look down on > Muggles, but he'd never slip up and say "Mudblood" and he doesn't > murder people). > Betsy Hp: Or Hermione might do the equivalent of saying "I've never cared for monkeys" when someone mentions the hot black teacher, but yes, she's not a bigot. No, I agree, these books are less about bigotry or love or any sort of big thing. They're about Harry triumphing over his enemies. Bigotry was just a handy nail to hang a group of the baddies on, not something to be explored. More's the pity. (That's all my opinion, of course.) Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 21:44:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:44:14 -0000 Subject: Sweeping the shadows into the corners (Was: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178707 Betsy Hp wrote: > I think JKR was working through some various issues through her writing of this series. And I think she got... maybe tired, maybe scared? Anyway, I've never seen a book sweep its shadow characters under the carpet so firmly and so quickly. I think the House Elf slavery issue was an innocent by-stander in some ways. Since JKR decided to embrace the close-minded, protectionism of the WW, all of its traditions had to be upheld. Therefore the House Elves remained slaves, the Centaurs remained in the forest, the Giants remained banned, and the Slytherins remained in the dungeons. Harry changed nothing; he just took his place amongst the elite. Carol responds: I certainly don't agree that Harry changed nothing. He destroyed Voldemort and made it impossible to become a Death Eater, paving the way for changes in Slytherin and the MoM. At the very least, we have a change to the pre-Voldemort WW in which a talented Slytherin kid like Severus Snape might have had a chance to use his talents productively. But as for Centaurs remaining in the forest, isn't that where they want to be? Remember Firenze's classroom? he wasn't at home in a building. He needed forest and the open sky. Giants remaining banned? We saw the giants. The closest we have to a civilized giant is Grawp, unwillingly uprooted from his home and tamed by Hagrid. Do you think that the other two giants that came to the battle would endure a similar taming? They'd kill the wizards who attempted it. I don't know what the solution is since giants kill each other if they're forced to live together, but it's sure not sending the giant children to Hogwarts. I've already talked about the House-Elves, who *want* to serve wizards and don't want to be freed (even Dobby wanted to work for wizards, he just wanted "being paid" extremely small wages so that he could buy socks). It's not as if the non-human species were human tribes or societies that could be integrated into wizarding society. Not even the Goblins want that. (Both the Centaurs and the Goblins view themselves as superior to the Wizards, so the prejudice is mutual.) And how about Merpeople? How can they be integrated into human society? They can't, so why not leave them to their own devices in the lake, with the company of the Giant Squid (which I wanted to see play some part in DH!). To force Wizarding ways on nonhuman species, even with the idea of "helping" them (cf. SPEW) is surely a form of cultural imperialism. As for Muggles and Wizards, JKR *has* to keep them separate to maintain verisimilitude--a secret society of Wizards living among us Muggles. They can't just reveal themselves because no such revelation occurred in 1998--or will ever occur in RL. So the inventions she came up with for enforcing WW secrecy--unplottable buildings, Obliviate, Muggle-repelling charms, the Statute of Secrecy (now dated 1689 instead of 1692 thanks to JKR's failure to check for consistency with earlier books)--problematic as they are, have to remain in force. That aspect of the books can't change, except in small ways, like Ron's getting a Muggle Driver's license and, I hope, improved Muggle Studies classes as a required subject for every student at Hogwarts. But setting aside JKR's interviews and DD's statements about the fountain in the MoM being a lie, if we look strictly at the canon, there was never much chance of an equal, integrated, utopian WW society. Giants and humans are not equals. Centaurs and humans, though equals (as both sides should realize), can never live together because they have different needs. Separate but equal may have been a bad idea in the American South, where the people involved were all human and capable of living and being educated together, but it would work perfectly well, if fairly implemented, for Wizards, Muggles, Centaurs, and Goblins. As for House-Elves, let them do what they want to do, which is to serve Wizards. Just make sure that they're treated fairly and have punishments for Wizards who abuse them. 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 From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 30 23:08:23 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178708 > Betsy Hp: > > And at least one of the examples Lizzyben used (the treatment of > goblins) is backed by a JKR interview in which she says that only > goblin fanatics would protest the Trio's deception over the sword (or > words to that effect). Which would mean, I'd think, that yes we > *are* supposed to look down on goblins on the whole. Pippin: Um, no, she said that only a goblin fanatic would think that Gryffindors had no right to the sword, or words to that effect. Nothing about the Trio's tactics, which *failed*. Or does failure only speak for itself when it's Slytherin? The whole point of the deceit was to keep the sword so they could use it to destroy the other three (as they thought) horcruxes. Their plan did not work. Neville recovered the sword, and not by deceiving anyone. > Betsy Hp: > I just want to take this moment to say I for one (can't speak for > Lizzyben obviously) absolutely believe that DH really *does* > encourage bigotry and hate. Pippin: Gosh, shouldn't the ACLU speak out against this menace? In fact I can't think of any serious anti-discrimination group that agrees with you. Are there any? It's their job to look for this kind of thing, but somehow it's only disappointed fans who seem to think that JKR's failure to portray the Slytherins or the goblins as wronged saints is immoral. It might help to remember that in fairy stories, the death of a villain or monster may symbolize integration, not destruction. Harry's visit to King's Cross could be seen as joining his ego to the superego (Dumbledore) and the id (Voldemort). Harry no longer needs to fear that his subconscious desires will dominate him, nor does he have to submit to the arid, loveless demands of the superego to avoid this. Likewise with immersion in Snape's memories, Harry is able to see Snape as a complete, though flawed, individual instead of a projection of his own fears. Pippin From stephab67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 30 23:43:29 2007 From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:43:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178709 Alla: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? Understandable, in a way, but she has to be aware of the dangers Ron and Hermione have already participated in with Harry and survived, which means that they're a lot stronger than she thinks. I'm also surprised that she perhaps thinks they would abandon Harry to take care of Voldie on his own. If so, she misjudged how much the three of them mean to each other. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? I'm with the others who say it's just wishful thinking on Ron's part. It's hard to accept that an old pro like Mad-Eye would have been killed, while he and the others survived. > 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?. To be honest, I read that and just thought, "hey, whatever you say, JKR." Having the FC be completely consistent (or not) didn't really enter into it. There were other things that I thought were larger inconsistencies, or just incidents of "why the heck did she have **** do that?" than the FC. > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? As others have said, he clearly wasn't actually "posessed" by it, but I think that his splinching and his self-esteem issues made him more vulnerable to the Horcrux than either Harry or Hermione. > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? Very noble. More below: Carol wrote: "Ron's ghoul plan seems far-fetched, but at least it doesn't hurt his parents, and his giving up school is no great sacrifice. I'm sure he'd rather be with Harry on what he thinks will be a great adventure, a chivalrous quest. I'm not altogether certain that Ron is making any sacrifices at this point. He has no conception of what will really be involved (or how really clueless Harry is with regard to finding and destroying the Horcruxes)." I don't completely agree with this. Ron had a much clearer idea of the terrible consequences for his family if the DEs found out that he had gone with Harry, than what the consequences would be for him personally, which is why he set up the ghoul. He knew that if the DEs found out he was with Harry, his family would be tortured to get them to tell where Harry was. This was borne out later, when the DEs find out that Ron is indeed with Harry, and it forces his whole family to go into hiding. I do think, Carol, that you are right in saying that Ron doesn't really have a clue on how bad the Horcrux hunt could be, but then neither did Harry nor Hermione. > 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? Makes total sense, and fits in with the worldview of the book. Plus, it's an easy explanation for both our favorite slightly-dense redheads and for kids. > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > wedding? 12 GP was a good place to start, even if they didn't intend to go there at first. Hogwarts would have been a mistake, as they would've had a hard time getting in due to all the DEs and Snape. > 8. Insert your question here. > Hermione fit so many other things into her bag, why the heck didn't she throw in some MREs, boxes of Mac and Cheese or Clif Bars or something? Being Muggle-born she would have known about that stuff. She put the tent in so she clearly had a thought that they'd be camping. Where did she think they were going to get food? That leads me to another question which will be more appropriate for one of the camping chapters, but I'll throw it out there anyway: why did Hermione feel that she had to sneak into a Muggle grocery store wearing the invisibility cloak? She's from that world, she had regular money, it wouldn't have been a huge deal for her to go shopping. Ron could have gone as well, it's not like Muggles knew who he was or anything. It's not like the DEs were staking out every single Muggle grocery story in Britain. stephab67 From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 00:35:28 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:35:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178710 Betsy Hp wrote: > Honestly, I thought her stuff about uniting the houses and her > dwelling on the fact that the four houses represent the four > elements is completely contradicted by the text. 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! I had *totally* expected Harry to discover a few Slytherins helping along with the Hogwarts resistance movement, maybe for not-so-honourable reasons or whatever, but still, there just HAD to be a few token Slytherins, there just HAD to, or all this talk of "uniting the Houses" would have been for nothing. But not only were there no Slytherins, but JKR even went out of her way to drive this point home, by making it obvious to the reader AND by making Harry notice it. This was a truly devastating moment for me, and after that nothing really mattered anymore. Oh sure, I enjoyed the Big Battle, and I empathised with Harry's heart-wrenching discoveries and decisions, but something had died within me: all this hoopla was not for the higher purpose I had thought it was for. And by extension the whole series was not saying what I had still hoped it was bent on saying, no matter the mounting pile of evidence to the contrary. After that one crystallising moment, I just KNEW that HP was not, had never been, this shining plea for tolerance and understanding that I had once thought it was, and that I was still hoping it was, even after the last 2 books which had seriously shaken my confidence on that matter. I remember JKR saying, in some very old interview (must have been before OoP at least), that after the last book would be out, she might very well have only a handful of fans left. At the time I was "No way! What is she talking about!?" Well, now, I know :-( Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 01:15:29 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:15:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178711 Alla asked: > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? Del replies: Obviously annoying, but totally understandable. Molly, like everyone else, just can't figure why there would be *anything* that Harry would have to do "on his own" (ie with Ron and Hermione only), when there are several able and talented wizards willing to help. She also doesn't understand why this whatever-it-is that HRH have to do should take place *now*. Why couldn't they go back to Hogwarts and become stronger, better wizards first? Compounded with her terrible fear of her loved ones dying (remember her Boggart in OoP?), it's totally understandable to me that she would do anything to prevent and/or delay the departure of the Trio. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? Because the second strongest wizard he ever knew dying a month after the first one is a bit too unsettling for him to consider? > 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? Not really, but I'm used to inconsistencies by now. More bothering to me is the question of why they didn't simply perform a new Secret Keeping charm?? Was DD the only one who could do one in the Order? Or is there a rule that you can't perform two consecutive Secret Keeping charms on the same secret? Or what?? > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? Hermione self-orphaning herself brought me to tears. Ethically, I was a bit bothered by her manipulation of her parents' lives presumably without their consent, but her erasing her own existence from their memories, with the very real possibility that they would *never* remember her again, was such a heart-wrenching sacrifice that it made up for the manipulation for me. > 6. What were your thoughts on Hermione's explanations of > what "Horcrux is a complete opposite of a human being" means? I was a bit confused at first, but once I got it I liked it very much. As for the remorse part, it so had "repentance" (the Christian concept) written all over it, it made me roll my eyes and smile. An additional comment: > Hermione is trying to choose which books she will take with her and > which books she will not. Harry and Ron notice the book "The Darkest > Secrets of the Dark Art" and they are surprised where Hermione got > this book. She explains that right after DD's funeral she Accioed > Horcrux related books of his study. Harry and Ron are suitably > amazed. My reaction was: yeah, right *rolls eyes* "Another one of those highly implausible coincidences that we're just supposed to take in our stride, heh, JKR?" Del From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 02:10:35 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:10:35 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/Sweeping Shadows/JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178712 > >>Betsy Hp: > > And the issue of House Elves being freed was dispatched in DH > > with the death of Dobby and with Harry's embracing the life of a > > slave-owner. How does this make lizzyben's reading selective? > >>Pippin: > It excludes the part where Hermione says she wants to take SPEW > further, in OOP, and the part where she tells Scrimgeour she means > to do some good in the world, in DH. Those plans did not revolve > around Dobby, and there's no reason to think they died with him. Betsy Hp: OotP took place before DH (and before Hermione showed herself pretty okay with one of her best friends owning a slave). And her "zinger" (and I quote because, OMG, the childish idiocy) in DH is where she lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Which she never regained. 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. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But there *is* a simple heartening answer in the books. Owning a > > slave is perfectly fine if the slave wants to be owned. RL is a > > bit messier, but JKR has created a world where everything is > > neat. Kreature is happy to be owned and Harry is happy to own > > him. Cue credits. > >>Pippin: > > Would you please explain to me what's simple and heartening > and perfectly fine about that? Seriously? > Betsy Hp: Oh nothing. Harry hadn't grown into his role of slave owner. The heartening bit is at the end when Harry's happily in charge as master of his domain. The happy ending: heartening and simple. Kreature is a happy slave and Harry is a happy owner. > >>Pippin: > And only a wizard fanatic would suggest that wizards are perfectly > correct in their treatment of goblins and never wrong. "Goblins > have good reason to dislike wizards, Ron," said Hermione. "They've > been treated brutally in the past." That Griphook happens to be > lying or mistaken about the sword does not mean that goblins > have no legitimate complaints about wizards. That's right there > in the text too. "There has been fault on both sides. I would > never claim that wizards have been innocent." Betsy Hp: But in the end, the goblin was wrong about who owned the sword and wizards prevailed and Harry was the happy master of his domain. > >>Pippin: > > In every subplot, Harry and Hermione go from apathy or ignorant > > hope to the knowledge that achieving a more equitable society > > will be difficult, but improvements can and should be made. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Where or where do you get this Pippin? Seriously, some straight > > forward, non-symbolic text that clearly states that the state of > > the WW bothers Harry and he's going to do something about it > > though it may take years. Something concrete please. > >>Pippin: > "I've said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat House > Elves. Well, Voldemort did...and so did Sirius." > > Harry had no retort. As he watched Kreacher sobbing on the floor, > he remembered what Dumbledore had said to him, mere hours > after Sirius's death: I do not think Sirius ever saw Kreacher as a > being with feelings as acute as a human's...." > > So, if you see House Elves as beings with feelings as acute as > a human's, how can you be okay with a system that makes them > punish themselves? Betsy Hp: Apparently, after living in a house with a house-elf happily being your slave, you become totally cool with it. Harry defines Kreature as his slave. He's a good boy so he's not into beating Kreature, but he's very cool with Kreature serving him. So the system works for Harry. > >>Pippin: > Do I have to quote all the text where Hermione > talks about how the WW could be improved? Did she die at the > end of DH? I must have missed it. Betsy Hp: Ah. This is where I assume all sorts of future activity based on stuff Hermione said or did in past books and ignore how it petered away as she got older, right? In the end though, the house-elf saga for Hermione ended with her kissing Ron. Then she had his babies. And that's all the books give us. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > If the reading is subversive show me evidence *in DH* that Harry > > is fighting the powers that be, not becoming one of them. > Pippin: > Where is the evidence that he's becoming one of them? That he > thinks about Kreacher getting him a sandwich? > Betsy Hp: Yes. Because this is Harry being totally cool with owning a slave. > >>Pippin: > If Hagrid was right, then Peter Pettigrew was a Slytherin since > there never was a dark wizard who wasn't in Slytherin, and Sirius > was a bad person because he had the same blood as Draco Malfoy. Betsy Hp: Hagrid was right because yeah, pretty much all of the Slytherins caved to the Death Eaters. None of them fought back and all of them walked out. > >>Pippin: > The Slytherins walked out because McGonagall told them to leave. > Betsy Hp: Because they'd shown themselves as baddies. (Or are you suggesting McGonagall is a baddie now?) So... Hagrid and Ron were right. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178707 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I think JKR was working through some various issues through > > her writing of this series. And I think she got... maybe tired, > > maybe scared? Anyway, I've never seen a book sweep its shadow > > characters under the carpet so firmly and so quickly. I think the > > House Elf slavery issue was an innocent by-stander in some ways. > > Since JKR decided to embrace the close-minded, protectionism of > > the WW, all of its traditions had to be upheld. Therefore the > > House Elves remained slaves, the Centaurs remained in the forest, > > the Giants remained banned, and the Slytherins remained in the > > dungeons. Harry changed nothing; he just took his place amongst > > the elite. > >>Carol responds: > I certainly don't agree that Harry changed nothing. He destroyed > Voldemort and made it impossible to become a Death Eater, paving the > way for changes in Slytherin and the MoM. > Betsy Hp: Neither Death Eaters nor Voldemort were stopping changes occurring in the MoM. Also, Harry just killed Voldemort. Packs of fanatic bigots could rise again because he did nothing to change or enlighten the primordal soup they rose out of, IMO. The epilouge reflects that by showing that neither the MoM nor Slytherin has changed. The idea that they needed to change is so unimportant to JKR she doesn't even address it. Instead we learn the names of the Trio's children. > >>Carol: > > But setting aside JKR's interviews and DD's statements about the > fountain in the MoM being a lie, if we look strictly at the canon, > there was never much chance of an equal, integrated, utopian WW > society. > Betsy Hp: I absolutely agree. The WW is defined by separation and fear. That's not the sort of society capable of change. Unfortunately Harry did nothing to heal the deep wounds within the WW. He didn't even really call attention to them. It was me, as a reader, that noticed the WW was pretty brutal. Harry was cool with it, and stayed that way. > >>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 Betsy Hp: Again, I agree. So, in the end the fountain was right. Sure, the details of the worshipping faces of the various creatures was a bit... optimistic. But that wizards and witches needed to rule above them? Quite the way it needs to be, apparently. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178708 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I just want to take this moment to say I for one (can't speak for > > Lizzyben obviously) absolutely believe that DH really *does* > > encourage bigotry and hate. > >>Pippin: > Gosh, shouldn't the ACLU speak out against this menace? > In fact I can't think of any serious anti-discrimination group > that agrees with you. Are there any? It's their job to look for > this kind of thing, but somehow it's only disappointed fans > who seem to think that JKR's failure to portray the Slytherins > or the goblins as wronged saints is immoral. Betsy Hp: That's me. A goblin fanatic; a Slytherin apologist. Very strange ideas I have about not judging a child at age eleven, about showing a modicum of respect for foreign cultures. Eh, it's probably because I'm an educated woman. Honestly, I should return to sighing dreamily over Harry's gorgeous green eyes and glorious naked body before I sprain something. (Don't worry. More than likely I'm just horribly jealous of Lily. You know how we women are.) I know you're just being silly here, but JKR doesn't actually assign a specific RL group as her focus of bigotry and hate. So why would RL anti-discrimination groups get involved? It just means that I personally find the story distasteful because it does reflect how bigots viewed those they judged, IMO. > >>Pippin: > It might help to remember that in fairy stories, the death of a > villain or monster may symbolize integration, not destruction. Betsy Hp: Only if this were a fairy story. But fairy stories don't run from the deep dark woods the way JKR did. So I don't classify this as a fairy story. (Though I notice you're once again reaching into the symbolism drawer to try and twist a message of "integration" into the ending. ) > >>Pippin: > Harry's visit to King's Cross could be seen as joining his ego > to the superego (Dumbledore) and the id (Voldemort). Betsy Hp: If Voldemort is the tortured baby, Harry (encouraged by his superego) ignores him. So I'd say King's Cross is more Harry rejecting his id. Which, IIRC, doesn't lead to good things in general. Also this totally fits with pushing the water house down. (And um, yeah, I notice I'm embracing this sort of symbolism... I think because for me it's dealing with the actual text, not encouraging me to ignore the text and base my interpertation on something completely outside it.) Betsy Hp (off to bed) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 31 02:17:53 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:17:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178713 Alla: 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in this chapter? Ceridwen: I think she's coddling them. She knows they want to be "up to no good" and she doesn't want them to go out and possibly get themselves killed. Alla: 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be dead? If not, why did he argue that? Ceridwen: It's hard to grasp a sudden death. It doesn't feel real. I think he's coming to grips with it slowly, and just being more vocal about it than others. Alla: 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?. Ceridwen: No. I thought the secret would either be dissolved by the death of the Secret Keeper, or it would be fixed forever. The idea of everyone who had been told about the secret becoming mini-SKs came from out of the blue for me and didn't seem to jibe with anything we'd heard of before in Potterverse magic. Alla: 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? Ceridwen: At first, you would think so, but what we see later on is the locket affecting the moods of the trio, more like a Dementor slung around their necks than possession. It's their own fears that haunt them, juding by what Ron sees coming out of the diary. It isn't the spirit of Tom Riddle taking over their bodies to angst over Harry and Hermione. I think the difference is that the diary was meant to be interactive so a live body could be used to do the physical things necessary to open the Chamber of Secrets and maintain the basilisk, so there was an added element. Alla: 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you think of the sacrifices they are making? Ceridwen: They've been doing a more limited version of this since PS/SS, so I think it's in character and in keeping with what we've seen. We may have a difference of opinion on certain elements of the sacrifices, but I don't think it is odd or more heroic than in any other book, given that they're now adults. Alla: 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? Ceridwen: I get what she was saying. The soul is in an unnatural state in a horcrux, and it has been damaged almost beyond repair. The main concern is for the health of the soul and not the body. Alla: 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the wedding? Ceridwen: I think they did right by going to Grimmauld Place, but they didn't tackle the problem effectively at first. Alla: 8. Insert your question here. Ceridwen: 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? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 02:18:23 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:18:23 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178714 > > lizzyben: > > Maybe one subplot got muddled, but how is it possible that *every* > > creature subplot ended w/Harry learning that the prejudice & > > oppression is justified? That can't be a coincidence. > > > > Prep0strus: > Well, bad writing wouldn't be a coincidence either, really, but it's > also an explanation aside from 'JKR meant to write something > subversive'. With almost every topic you have a subversive, > inside-out viewpoint to express. And it's not like they can't be > defended, and they're certainly interesting. lizzyben: What can I say? Everyone's got a niche. Go to Carol for knowledge of canon, go to lizzyben for loony Luna Lovegood theories. The thing is, post-HBP, it was also "subversive" to argue that DD was a manipulative Machievelli, or that Snape was still on the good side. Both interpretations went against the surface appearances of the text, and both turned out to be true. Just because it's subversive, doesn't mean it's wrong. In many ways, the books actually *encourage* subversive readings, through the relentless double standards & switching of roles. And I'm not sure what's subversive at all about the House-elf interpretation. A subversive int. goes directly against the stated message of the work. But here, it seems like no one is even sure what that message was. I think we can all agree that "Elf slavery is wrong" didn't end up being the ultimate message of the series. So you're either left arguing that elf slavery is good & natural, or just puzzled by the whole thing. In that context, I don't see why it's subversive to say that the actual message is that "House-elf slavery is a good thing", when that seems to be the actual result of the series. Harry certainly doesn't end up thinking that being a slave-owner is wrong. He ends the series wanting his house-elf to make him a sandwich. Prepostrus: > That being said, I don't believe it was the intent. That doesn't > matter for the interpretation to exist, and it can be fun to play > around with different ways of looking at things, but there is no way I > will ever believe JKR meant to write a story in which she expresses > the idea that slavery is good and bigotry is good, and all that. > Which is why I ask for explanations for things that make sense in > areas that to me simply look like poor writing. lizzyben: I simply cannot figure out what JKR's intent was. Like you, I'd *assume* that she wasn't intending to write a pro-slavery series, but IMO that's what ended up happening. It's especially odd considering her statements that directly compare the elf slavery to real-life slavery & racism. But then again, I'd also assume that a member of Amnesty Int. wouldn't show Harry torturing someone, & that's what she did. So, IMO we've got to toss aside assumptions & simply look at the text. Pretend that no one knows who wrote it, when it was written, why it was written. And looking at the text only, the end message did seem to approve of the established hierarchy of the wizarding world. Harry's narrative arc doesn't involve him changing the status quo of the WW, but involves him coming to understand and accept the values of this society. He's accepted his own natural, proper position of superiority. And I don't necessarily agree that that was intended arc, but simply proposing it as a reading. And I am sort of playing with it, because the message about "magical creatures" is so muddled that it seems like it almost might make more sense if we come at it from a different angle. It's like a jumbled-up Rubik's Cube - none of the colors or themes or subplots align at all. Except, when you twist the Cube a certain way, all the colors line up. When I look at the house-elf issue from a standpoint of Harry assuming his natural wizarding right to rule over other creatures/races, all of these subplots fall into place. Prepostrus: > A lot could also validly be explained by the fact that these are > fantasy creatures - just as hippogriffs, by definition, can respond to > human verbal treatment, so could house elves very legitimately be > perfectly fine as servants without aspiration and giants be violent > evil creatures. lizzyben: Well, except that Dobby did have that aspiration to be free, & he could think & talk & hope & dream. He's not an animal. Hagrid's a half-giant, and very gentle & kind. Even Grawp cries at a funeral. But I guess they're just misfits? Where this gets disturbing to me is how many of the misfits that don't fit this rigid hierarchy were killed off or eliminated in the end. Dobby, the one free elf, Lupin, the one werewolf who wanted to be a part of wizarding society, Tonks, a Metamophus who married a werewolf over a proper wizard, Snape, who was sorted too soon, & even Sirius, who was a good guy from bad blood. So in the end, the established hierarchy can remain intact. Prepostrus: > I agree that that is not always how she presented everything, but > that's where I see confusion and missed opportunities - not a > deliberate attempt to put forth opposite ideas to everything she has > stated. > > Just as her treatment of Slytherin is not, imo, a support of bigotry, > but a statement against the ideas of bigotry. lizzyben: I really, really don't want to get sucked into the Slyth issue again & I'm sure no one wants to hear it. Suffice it to say that JKR defines bigotry as the belief that "that which is different from me is necessarily evil." And in the end, we learn that the different House is necessarily evil, or at least horrible. The giants are evil brutes, the goblins are sneaky & untrustworthy. In this crazy world, the worst stereotypes about "the Other" are actually true. Just like, in this crazy world, the justifications that slave-owners give are actually correct. I loved GWTW, but it is incredibly racist & pro-slavery. And in that novel, the narrative defends slavery by claiming that slaves are actually happy with their lot, that they'd never be able to cope on their own, that the slaves who want freedom are just crazy & don't understand how good they've got it, etc. And these are the same arguments that are used to defend house-elf slavery in HP. With GWTW or War & Peace, modern readers know that this standpoint is antiquated & wrong. But with HP, readers are told that this standpoint is actually correct & proper. JKR has created a world in which slavery is justified, superiority & inequality is proper, and oppression of "inferiors" is the right of the elite. It's nutty. Prepostrus: > But while I don't agree with you, and have a hard time believing you > really even truly agree with what you said... I don't have a good > answer. It's why I hate the elf storyline and wonder why it was > included. Grawp, as the representative for the giants, and Draco... > sort of the representative for the Slytherins, I also see as oddly > dropped storylines. Yes, even the goblins... I just don't understand > why she brought up issues to not really address them. lizzyben: Well, it might just be that the series got too big & complicated for her to resolve all of the subplots in a satisfactory fashion. So in DH, she often chose easy resolutions over "right", complex resolutions. It's easier to resolve the "house elf" subplot by simply having a freed Dobby die & an enslaved Kreacher happy with his new owner. Or to resolve the goblin/Wizard issue by just saying that goblin customs are nuts. Or to resolve the werewolf issue by killing off the "good werewolf", etc. So it's not that she intended to resolve the subplots in this way, but that she changed her mind about them mid-stream. *pauses, shuffles the mental Rubik's Cube* But that still doesn't line up, because JKR has said that she planned the last third of DH over a decade ago & she wrote the epilogue at that time. This was always the ending she had planned - and she always knew that the ending wasn't going to involve house-elf liberation, werewolf inclusion, Slytherin redemption, giant tolerance, or any change at all for the status of the "magical brethren". So why would she even bring up these issues in OOTP? Why have Harry notice the "falseness" of the golden statutes if she never intended to go anywhere with that? Of course, arguably the series did go somewhere with these subplots, and they were resolved. And that resolution involved Harry taking up the White Man's Burden, or the British Wizard's Burden, to rule over these inferior races. And it's noble & proper for him to do that, even though these ungrateful people/creatures don't always seem to understand that it's all for their own good. It's sort of an ode to British imperialism & superiority, as lealess pointed out. "Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. ... Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?" - Rudyard Kipling That same smug self-righteous superiority is what I see in the end of DH. Prepostrus: I don't think > the issues were made clear enough (because of the fantasy rules that > overlie the structure) to even promote good debate. So it's not that > she had to tie these things up in a bow for me to be happy, but I need > to see some reason why they were even made a part of the story. lizzyben: One problem is that when we're introduced to a new fantasy universe, the rules of that universe need to be clear. In COS, we're introduced to the concept of elf slavery. And we're shown that poor Dobby is abused, miserable, forced to obey cruel masters, & made to punish himself whenever he goes against orders. When Harry frees Dobby, he is incredibly grateful & happy. So, in that novel, elf slavery is clearly characterized as a "bad thing", the Malfoys are bad for owning one, and Harry's a hero for freeing one. In this universe, slavery is an evil that should be corrected by Harry. Then in DH, slavery is suddenly a natural institution that should be accepted by Harry. If that's really what JKR intended, that should've been clear throughout. She could've introduced the issue w/poor Winky, so miserable since she'd been freed, so happy to work for no wages. Then, the rules of this universe would be clear - slavery is a good thing for house-elves. If readers don't like that rule, they don't have to read the series. Instead, HP introduces slavery as an evil, and then transforms it into a good at the end. And maybe that's why elves were introduced into the story, so that Harry could go through that arc & realize his proper role. Prepostrus: > There's an argument to be made that centaurs break the mold slightly > (though, I'm sure, in your view, their coming to help the 'good' > wizards only solidifies their place as subservient), but not enough to > truly represent anything important. > > It really is very confusing to me. I don't think the answer is that > prejudice is justified, but I'm sorry to say that I don't have my own > theory to put forth. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) lizzyben: So, what it boils down to is that you don't like thinking that the books sent this message, but can't contradict that viewpoint? I don't like it either, but that theory seems to best explain the way that these issues were eventually resolved. Like Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I find it highly improbable that JKR intended for Harry & co. to learn that prejudice is justified, slavery is proper, some classes are morally inferior, and the elite have a right to rule, but IMO that's exactly what she did. lizzyben From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 02:33:13 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:33:13 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178715 zgirnius wrote: > > "That wand's more trouble than it's worth. And quite honestly, I've > > had enough trouble for a lifetime.", the closing statement by our > > hero with which the book ends, has the same sorts of things going > > for it as "All was well". > va32h: > Oh I don't agree at all. I found that line of Harry's terribly > cheesy. It didn't sound like Harry's natural voice to me - it sounded > very in-the-know "I've had enough trouble for a lifetime" (turn to > the audience, grin slyly and wink). zgirnius: Cheesy is in the eye of the beholder; I would not presume to argue that. I could also not say whether or not the 'voice' seems like Harry's natural one, though in my view such a short snippet cannot be too far off. Where I feel I can disagree with your opinion is the seeming suggestion that the sentiment expressed is not one Harry sincerely holds. From Book 1, Harry has been depicted as a reluctant hero. He doesn't want the Stone for himself, he realizes what it would mean for him, his friends, and their families if Voldemort got the Stone. He has no desire to be in the Triwizard Tournament. At the end of HBP he thinks of the necessity of confronting Voldemort as a "nightmare". So yes, he has seen a lot of trouble, and yes, he does not want any more. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 02:59:09 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:59:09 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178716 > lizzyben: > > I really, really don't want to get sucked into the Slyth issue again & > I'm sure no one wants to hear it. Suffice it to say that JKR defines > bigotry as the belief that "that which is different from me is > necessarily evil." And in the end, we learn that the different House > is necessarily evil, or at least horrible. The giants are evil brutes, > the goblins are sneaky & untrustworthy. In this crazy world, the worst > stereotypes about "the Other" are actually true. Just like, in this > crazy world, the justifications that slave-owners give are actually > correct. > Prep0strus: See, I don't think that means she was writing a story with a bad message. When you say the stereotypes about 'the Other' are true, it for me negates the idea of them being a true 'other'. I don't think the story has an evil message, so much as it's much less complex, and much more surface than we thought. There are a lot of things that seemed complex, that seemed grey... that we would see the other side of things we thought were one way, that there would be surprises and nuances. But, in the end, I think a lot of those did not exist. The story was more black and white than expected, and the message more surface, more obvious. Now, some amount of good storytelling (of which JKR does have) kept her from making completely uninteresting, bland characters. She made these characters NOT grey, NOT flat... and yet, which is what created the problem in the first place. The lack of followthrough, however, I see as a mistake and a general inexperience and immaturity as a writer. She wanted to make interesting characters, but she doesn't appear as interested in interesting themes. One theme is that bigotry is wrong. Slytherin represents bigotry, therefore Slytherin is wrong. The problem is that there are then characters that make up Slytherin, and she gave those characters too much depth, making us think that Slytherin itself also had depth... while I think that it does not. Ugh. I'm getting into the Slytherin thing... but I mean it as an example. And what you said - that these groups actually ARE what they say they are... well, that doesn't mean something BAD. It's just saying - a person who seems like a bigot is a bigot. She didn't make them one group that would be associated with a real life group to which she was assigning bigotry. Like, if all Slytherins were Swedish, and they were all bigots, and they were the villains. If they seemed to have depth, and then didn't, one might think that she was associating bigots with Swedes, and while for six books we thought we'd find out, they're not really, life is more complex than that, no one is that one dimensional... instead, no, she was just using her pen to call Swedes bigots. But what JKR did was create a group of people who were mean bigots... and in the end, that's all the were, mean bigots. She thinks mean bigots are bad, and wants everyone else to think so, and that's that. That was a pretty convoluted explanation of what's going on in my head, but if you follow it... I think it's an explanation for how the story can still be one with a good moral, just a simplistic one, as opposed to a complex good moral or a bad moral of any complexity. The elves... that I have a harder time with, because I can't fit it together any way - not the way you do, either. I don't think the message that 'slavery is ok as long as you treat them nice' makes sense in the context of the story. She gave too much sympathy to Dobby, to the idea of freeing slaves, and talked about how slavery is bad in her interviews. Now, she did not follow up on that storyline appropriately, but she also didn't go AGAINST it enough to make a strong point that slavery is ok. Dobby's death and the lack of any forward momentum on the issue lean that way, but I don't think that it's enough to support the idea that the books actually support slavery. These groups were the 'other' to us (well, to some of us - Slytherin was never 'the other' to me), but I think to JKR it's simpler. Muggleborns were the other. Bigotry against them represents bigotry. These other groups I feel just aren't as meaningful as we made them out to be. > > lizzyben: > > So, what it boils down to is that you don't like thinking that the > books sent this message, but can't contradict that viewpoint? I > don't like it either, but that theory seems to best explain the way > that these issues were eventually resolved. Like Sherlock Holmes said, > "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." I find it highly improbable that JKR > intended for Harry & co. to learn that prejudice is justified, slavery > is proper, some classes are morally inferior, and the elite have a > right to rule, but IMO that's exactly what she did. > Prep0strus: I can contradict the viewpoint, and I've tried to express how I'm able to do so... what I can't do, is provide an adequate alternate viewpoint, which is a different thing. I agree with the Holmes sentiment, or the idea that by by doubting things you can come to the truth. The problem is, I doubt your theory equally as much as the real one - I find it certainly improbable, if not impossible. Maybe at some point I'll come across a theory that makes more sense to me. For now, inconsistent incompetence is the one that makes the most sense. The arguments for a negative reading are, to me, weaker than those for a positive reading... but the fact that they exist at all show me that she did not accomplish what she wanted to do regardless. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Wed Oct 31 03:48:45 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:48:45 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178718 zgirnius: Cheesy is in the eye of the beholder; I would not presume to argue that. I could also not say whether or not the 'voice' seems like Harry's natural one, though in my view such a short snippet cannot be too far off. Tiffany: Cheesiness is very relative at the very least, much like anything pertaining to tastes or preferences. I agree that the line he said was real cheesy in the book, but because I liked how it was delivered by him. I feel that all the WW characters can be accused of either being cheesy or weird in some way, but because I'm known for being an oddball with a dramatic side, it's no big deal to me. Heck, I didn't care for what actually came out of Harry's mouth at all, but I could respect the way he said. I really found some cheesy moments by Harry in DH when he was dueling with LV, some stuff seemed to be too Holywood to be taken seriously. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Oct 31 04:07:01 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:07:01 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178719 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > Cheesy is in the eye of the beholder; I would not presume to argue > that. I could also not say whether or not the 'voice' seems like > Harry's natural one, though in my view such a short snippet cannot be > too far off. > > Where I feel I can disagree with your opinion is the seeming suggestion > that the sentiment expressed is not one Harry sincerely holds. From > Book 1, Harry has been depicted as a reluctant hero. He doesn't want > the Stone for himself, he realizes what it would mean for him, his > friends, and their families if Voldemort got the Stone. He has no > desire to be in the Triwizard Tournament. At the end of HBP he thinks > of the necessity of confronting Voldemort as a "nightmare". So yes, he > has seen a lot of trouble, and yes, he does not want any more. > va32h: I have been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that I probably would have had no problem with that line in PS. It sounds like something 11 year old Harry would say...and even at 11 Harry has had more trouble than most people have had in a lifetime. I guess I was expecting something *more* from 17 year old Harry who had seen and survived a lot worse than Fluffy, Devil's Snare, a giant chess set and Voldemort out the back of Quirrell's head. va32h From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 04:33:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:33:46 -0000 Subject: The House Elf storyline in the HP Series Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178720 > Prep0strus: > I don't think the > message that 'slavery is ok as long as you treat them nice' makes > sense in the context of the story. She gave too much sympathy to > Dobby, to the idea of freeing slaves, and talked about how slavery is > bad in her interviews. zgirnius: I agree, it makes little sense to me as well. And we really don't, IMO, need to appeal to her interviews, or biographical facts like her involvement with Amnesty International (which opposes, among other things, human trafficking), to see an anti-slavery message in the House Elf story arc in the series. > Prep0strus: >Now, she did not follow up on that storyline > appropriately, but she also didn't go AGAINST it enough to make a > strong point that slavery is ok. Dobby's death and the lack of any > forward momentum on the issue lean that way, but I don't think that > it's enough to support the idea that the books actually support slavery. zgirnius: I don't agree that the death of Dobby is some sort of step back in the House Elf story line that somehow detracts from the weight of the statements within the books about the evils of House Elf slavery (which are numerous). On the contrary, I found it to be a positive, showing again (and in a very emotionally impactful way, at least for me) that freeing the House Elves is the right thing to do in the long run. Dobby, after being freed, is shown to be almost comical in his devotion to Harry, willing to fulfill his every order and go without sleep even when Harry does not actually want him to. Almost as if he were, again, Harry's slave, though we know he is technically free. Then he dies as a result of disobeying a standing order by Harry. ("Just promise never to try and save my life again," CoS). Dobby's life *and* death show what is possible for a House Elf ? to be independent and brave and loving, just the way a human can be. Dobby, of course, is a lot more ? from his courageous secret interference with his Master's plan and desire for freedom in CoS, to his death in the defense of others' lives and his cause, he is a heroic figure. Most House Elves alive at the time of the story find his condition (being free, and happy about it) shocking and unnatural. But the text offers us an explanation for this other than "it is the natural order": They are "what wizards have made them". And what wizards have done, wizards can set right (not overnight, by freeing the elves wholesale and causing them great distress, but over time). Nor is Dobby the only Elf we see changing over the course of the books. We see changes that tend in the same direction as Dobby. In my understanding of the books, Dobby is the desired end point for all of the House Elves, one we do not see achieved fully except by Dobby himself within the series. He is free, happy that way, and finds an accommodation with humans that permits him to enjoy freedom while still engaging in the traditional activities of his kind. Most particularly, Kreacher is such an example, and I don't refer to his acquisition of a more pleasant manner, his better grooming, or his desire to serve Harry rather than call it a nasty Half-blood. Kreacher wanted to destroy the locket, because it is what Regulus died doing. He also, of course, *had* to destroy the locket, because the House Elf enchantment bound him to obey the order of his master, so how can I know he actually, independently, wanted this done? Because Regulus is dead these eighteen years, and yet Kreacher tells the other Elves of Hogwarts his story, and inspires them to participate in the final battle against Voldemort and his forces. Regulus did not order Kreacher to work for the downfall of Voldemort. On the contrary, he left Kreacher in ignorance of his change of heart, so that years later, Kreacher was still parroting the pureblood philosophy. Harry set Kreacher straight on what had happened, and Kreacher, on his very own, with no orders from Harry, decided that the thing to do at the end of the book, was convince his fellows to fight Voldemort. And even if we buy that this is still some sort of slavish devotion to Regulus (which I do not for a moment, but I see the argument coming), it does not explain why the *other* Elves would go along. Unless, of course, *they* find something inspiring in the story of "Regulus, defender of House Elves", and something to oppose in the Dark Lord who would torture and kill a House Elf without compunction. Hermione finally kisses Ron when Ron expresses a concern that House Elves should not fight and die for humans. And then a few chapters later, House Elves make a decision to fight and die for themselves. They may be bound to do the laundry, but they can look at both sides in a war, see the one they belong on, and fight for it all by themselves. Kreacher and his fellow fighting Elves go right back into the kitchens and make food for the humans alongside whom they fought (and presumably, have a well-earned snack themselves). I would point out, that even if they were free, this would be their (paid) job to do, so in and of itself it is no more demeaning to them than going about healing the wounded right after the battle would be for Madam Pomfrey. But we have been shown they can (and therefore should) be more, and we also know that Harry, Ron, and Hermione all believe this. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 03:16:25 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:16:25 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178721 Adam (Prep0strus) wrote: > And what you said - that these groups actually > ARE what they say they are... well, that doesn't > mean something BAD. It's just saying - a person > who seems like a bigot is a bigot. Del replies: And that to me is an *extremely* BAD message to send, because its ramifications are appalling. Examples: * I don't like your opinion on that one matter, so I classify you as a bigot and that's it. * I don't understand where you're coming from on this matter, so I classify you as a bigot. * I don't care what particular reasons you may have to think differently than I do, you're just a bigot. And so on. In general: "don't hesitate to judge a book by its cover." Nasty. > She didn't make them one group that > would be associated with a real life > group to which she was assigning bigotry. No, but she did associate particular traits with Slytherin. The concept of Muggleborns is a purely fictitious one, but the Slytherins are Sorted based on some very real things. Del From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Oct 31 05:16:35 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:16:35 -0000 Subject: Laughter in DH WAS Laughing All the Way to the Bank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178722 What about when they tumble off the dragon and Ron says "'Well, I don't know how to break this to you,' said Ron. 'but I think they MIGHT have noticed we broke into Gringotts.'" (p. 548) or Krum saying what's the use of being an international quidditch star if all the good looking girls are taken or Percy "'Hello Minister!' bellowed Percy, sending a neat jinx straight at Thicknesse, who dropped his wand and clawed at the front of his robes, apparently in awful discomfort. 'Did I mention I'm resigning?'" (p. 636) Or Crabbe "what's a die-dum?" P. 629 AS has been mentioned before, Ron and Hermione's back and forth "always the note of surprise.." Arthur rebuilding Sirius' motorcycle and hiding it from Molly in the midst of everything... People throwing food through the windows of Hogwarts into Grawp's mouth... McGonagall marshalling the desks and shouting "charge" Peeves' little ditty at the end "We did it, we bashed them, wee Potter's the one, and Voldy's gone moldy, so now let's have fun!" (American edition, p. 746 DH), and then Ron saying: "'Really gives a feeling for the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn't it?' said Ron......" Susan From zhoehoney_79 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 05:23:19 2007 From: zhoehoney_79 at yahoo.com (zhoehoney_79) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:23:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH6, THE GHOUL IN PYJAMAS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178723 > 1. What do you think of Molly's behavior towards the Trio in > this chapter? zhoehoney_79: I just thought it's just normal that she's against it and they will actually miss school... moms will definitely want their children to finish school.. > 2. Do you think Ron truly believed that Mad Eye may not be > dead? If not, why did he argue that? In everything bad that happens to us we always have this stage of denial and I think Ron and company is still in that stage... > 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?. I think it's consistent and basically Hermione explained it also in the upcoming chapter > 4. If the Diary!Horcrux was possessing Ginny does it mean that > the Locket!Horcrux will be possessing Ron later in the book? In the early part of the book I'm kind of expecting someone to be possess by the locket but I didn't think that it's going to be Ron... > 5. Ron and Hermione are committed to help Harry. What did you > think of the sacrifices they are making? Very brave...it's nice to have friends like those two... > 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? I think that Hermione's doing her homework again! She explains the Horcrux in the most effective and simplest way possible, even if Harry and Ron (bless them) don't get it at first.... > 7. Where did you think Trio should start their hunt after the > wedding? Personally I think they should start at Hogwarts... even if they don't get any Horcrux they will find answers to the questions they have about their forthcoming task... 8. If you were Ron would you think of using a ghoul as your double? If not what will you do to protect your family? zhoehoney_79 From greatraven at hotmail.com Wed Oct 31 11:56:58 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:56:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's bed (Was: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178724 --- 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! > Carol, wondering whether HRH and Dean were able to finish up the month > or two left in the school year just as Hermione was allowed to finish > her second year after having been Catified and Petrified Sue: Maybe, but Hermione was actually at school for a large chunk of second year, whereas none of the Trio was at school at all during the year of DH - and let's face it, there wasn't much of Hogwarts left to continue for the rest of the year! My guess is that the place would have been closed early for repairs and mourning and replacement of dead/ Death Eater staff and started again the following term. I do agree that Harry's bed would still be there, though it might be a little musty after being unoccupied for a year... :-) > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 12:58:06 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:58:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178725 > >>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! > > This was a truly devastating moment for me, and after that nothing > really mattered anymore. > > After that one crystallising moment, I just KNEW that HP was not, > had never been, this shining plea for tolerance and understanding > that I had once thought it was, and that I was still hoping it was, > even after the last 2 books which had seriously shaken my > confidence on that matter. > 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. (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.] Betsy Hp From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 13:16:49 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:16:49 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178726 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > What I am raising an eyebrow about is Annemehr's comment: > > "Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly > not "questionable," but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a > purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. That's how finely > crafted literature is written. And if a story is not so finely crafted, > then each sentence will be thoroughly critiqued, you can be > sure." > Annemehr: Well, a mere raised eyebrow is a lot less emphatic than "Hell's Bells!" ;) But I do think that the ideal is for every sentence to have a purpose, and that it's appropriate for the readership to look for it. And, you know, the author has to actually write each and every one; why would she bother, unless she had some purpose for each? Granted, some are there to carry a deeper meaning while others merely set the scene or inject a bit of humor, but those are all worthy purposes. But it's a poor work of fiction indeed that has lines that are only meant to be filler. That's not to say that I expect perfection from the author, nor that *each* reader is going to examine *every* sentence. You are free to ignore the one in question, as you said you had until this thread (your post #178644). But this particular thread is about a sentence that jumped out at quite a few people and that (as I pointed out in my last post) has prominence both of placement in the book and as the final word of a rather large story arc. Besides that, obviously quite a few people have found it perplexing. That's why I don't understand your reaction to the thread being "Hell's Bells" -- i.e., it certainly looks as though you believe that the thread is either unworthy of existence or inappropriate. (Ref. your post #178632: "Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a subversive and questionable meaning in every sentence of the books?"). Geoff: > I don't think that JRRT went through EVERY sentence with a fine > toothcomb. Don't forget also that there were inconsistencies in > "The Silmarillion" which Christopher Tolkien never successfully > eradicated before it was published in 1977. > > JRRT is exceptional. There are many, many authors, including, > inter alia, C S Lewis and JKR who have let inconsistencies in > but many readers are prepared to let through for the sake of > getting on with the reading. Real life can be a bit like that > sometimes! :-( > Annemehr: Well, again, just because some inconsistencies are to be expected, doesn't mean the readers can't be attentive to the whole book, and examine all of it for meaning. Minor inconsistencies are often ignored by many, or remarked upon just for fun, and then we move on. On the other hand, apparent inconsistencies of theme and ideas have to be examined and either resolved or judged problematic (or, more probably, both, depending on who you ask!). As an example of a minor inconsistency, toward the end of OoP, when the students are studying hard for OWLs, there is a line about Parvati making her pencil case zoom around the table. The line's purpose is to help set the scene: the students are all working uncharacteristically hard, partially illustrated by Parvati practicing Charms. The inconsistency which jumped out at *me* is that she has a pencil case, when they always use quills at school. But, you know, there will never be a thread about this line, because the inconsistency doesn't really matter: it doesn't hurt the story, it doesn't carry a deeper meaning, and the line itself still succeeds in its purpose of scene-setting. Still, there is at least one reader who hasn't *ignored* that line. :D The line about Kreacher getting a sandwich is different. Perhaps it is possible that one could see it as mere scene-setting also, but it is clear that many readers found there was much more to it, and not because they were nit-pickily poring over every sentence looking for something to complain about, but because it jumped out at them at first reading. I'm just saying, 1) ANY line in the book is worth attending to, to see what intention lies behind it, and 2)It's not at all suprising to me that the sandwich line has been much discussed, and I think it's appropriate that it has. Anyway, regardless of whether you paid any attention to the line before this thread came up, in post #178644 you yourself found a positive meaning in it when you said: "To me, it was just an indicator of the fact that, after having hated Kreacher through OOTP and HBP, Harry was reminding himself that he had crafted a new relationship with Kreacher, which had given the latter something of a new lease of life." Well, that's fair, and worth saying, and if you had continued to ignore the line, you never would have said it at all. :) Annemehr From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 13:25:30 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:25:30 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178727 You know, I proofread my last post several times in both the composing box and on Notepad, but no matter what, they STILL always look different when they appear on the list. Previously I said: > But it's a poor work of fiction indeed that has lines that are only > meant to be filler. Just to be clear, I did NOT intend to imply the HP books contain any mere filler. In fact, I think they don't, and that's part of the reason why I think it IS worth looking at any or every line JKR wrote to find what its purpose is. Annemehr From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 14:17:42 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:42 -0000 Subject: The House Elf storyline in the HP Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178728 > > Prep0strus: > >Now, she did not follow up on that storyline > > appropriately, but she also didn't go AGAINST it enough to make a > > strong point that slavery is ok. Dobby's death and the lack of any > > forward momentum on the issue lean that way, but I don't think that > > it's enough to support the idea that the books actually support > slavery. > > zgirnius: > I don't agree that the death of Dobby is some sort of step back in > the House Elf story line that somehow detracts from the weight of the > statements within the books about the evils of House Elf slavery > (which are numerous). On the contrary, I found it to be a positive, > showing again (and in a very emotionally impactful way, at least for > me) that freeing the House Elves is the right thing to do in the long > run. Magpie: I don't understand why one would think this based on the books. What are the "numererous" evils of House Elf slavery that show that freeing them is the right thing to do-and why should I think that "what Wizards made them" indicates that House Elves are tiresomely (imo) subservient because Wizards make them that way? I don't know who makes House Elves punish themselves because they've disobeyed, so I don't know if I should blame that on Wizards. That certainly seems like a horrible thing to me, but why isn't the answer the one that Hermione herself seems to choose in the end? She says nothing about freeing Kreacher, she says Kreacher should be understood to have feelings as deep as a human's and so be treated correctly--iow, go along with things that are important to him and not torture him. (Bizarrely, this seems to be presented as what Hermione's thought all along even though she starts out the storyline completely disregarding what's important to House Elves in favor of doing what she thinks is best for them.) Dobby for whatever reason wanted to be free and as you say, remained as slave-like as ever when free, but happy because he could choose his own master. (One of the many things I couldn't stand about Dobby, but free is free--anybody's free to be a sychophant.) Kreacher and the other elves don't want to be free. So what's evil about having them as a slave if you're a great guy who can be counted on to not abuse them? What's being presented as "evil" about Kreacher's situation with the kids in Grimmauld Place, making them nutritious meals and being happy to do so while they're polite about it? He's not disobeying him, so he's not in danger of punishing himself, and presumably the idea is that he would never have to. They seem like a happy little household to me. So what's the evil of slavery if you have a good master and you want to be a slave--according to canon? Because canon doesn't seem to say anything about the potential evil to the slave owners to me. I don't think the last line is supposed to hit an ominous note. Since Harry's so wonderful and so not wanting any power, what's wrong with him owning a slave according to canon? Sure bad people owning slaves is a bad thing because they won't treat them according to Hermione's brilliant ideas, but that doesn't apply to Harry, does it? Is the only evil that you might wind up with the Malfoys? And how does the Winky story indicate that freeing them is the best thing to do? And if that's the right thing to do, why isn't Harry freeing Kreacher rather than ending the book asserting (however gently or deservedly) his position as his master? And btw, as an aside, I don't see why we should take know-it-all Hermione's word for it how Sirius understood Kreacher's feelings. Hermione does tend to reduce people to a series of mistakes taht she herself could correct. Sirius actually *did* treat Kreacher like a person--he treated him the same way the Trio treats people they don't like. I don't see how he didn't understand that Kreacher's feelings ran deep when it came to, for instance, the feeling that he hated Sirius. Kreacher was just as nasty to everyone else as Sirius was to him, and Sirius was pretty powerless himself at that point. They had a bad bad relationship. (And Dumbledore's hardly one to talk about respecting anybody's acute feelings except as a way to manipulate them.) I mean, how on earth does Hermione's behavior towards Kreacher in OotP indicate that she's respecting the depth of his feelings? I got the opposite impression--Kreacher's ranting about how he wants these people out of his beloved mistress' house (understandably) and Hermione's condescendingly offering him presents and dismissing his real feelings as just Kreacher being insane show that she's respecting them? As usual it's "do as I say and not as I do" for Hermione. Kreacher seemed like far more of a human being to me in his interactions with Sirius than he did in DH. But regardless, Harry owns Kreacher as a slave for two books, and that first book is the one where Hermione completely drops the convictions about House Elves she's had for two books--you know, the ones where she's been "freeing" them. (Perhaps that was just a way of working out her romantic energy as she waited for Ron to hit puberty hard.) Suddenly in HBP Harry owns one and she says nothing about it except to counsel treating him like a good slave owner. She says nothing about there being anything evil about the situation for Kreacher or for Harry (when for me that's always been the issue-- Wizards ought to be focusing on what's bad about being a slave owner since that's what they are). I'd be freaked out if one of my friends suddenly owned a slave, myself! In DH she's again lecturing on understanding how House Elves work-- she who's been making herself the least popular with them for two books because she seems unable to do that. Only now she's changed her tune (but I'm not sure if I'm supposed to hear the difference) and talks in terms of Harry accepting his role responsibly Kreacher's happy to serve her and she's served by him fine. Then the book ends with Ron thinking of House Elves the same way Ron (not Hermione) has always thought about House Elves and she's kissing him as if he's finally come around. Really it's Hermione who's come around to *Ron's* way of thinking, and Ron's position has always been that House Elves are what they are and if you're lucky enough to have one that's fine--just don't abuse them. 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. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 31 14:21:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:21:10 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > Geoff: > > > What I am raising an eyebrow about is Annemehr's comment: > Annemehr: > > Well, a mere raised eyebrow is a lot less emphatic than "Hell's > Bells!" ;) But I do think that the ideal is for every sentence to > have a purpose, and that it's appropriate for the readership to look > for it. And, you know, the author has to actually write each and > every one; why would she bother, unless she had some purpose for > each? Granted, some are there to carry a deeper meaning while others > merely set the scene or inject a bit of humor, but those are all > worthy purposes. > > But it's a poor work of fiction indeed that has lines that are only > meant to be filler. Geoff: In example, I would feel that there are some sentences written by one such as JRRT which are only scene-setters - some of the description of the countryside of Ithilien for example in ROTK - which, if left out, would not have affected the flow of the story. Annemehr: > That's not to say that I expect perfection from the author, nor that > *each* reader is going to examine *every* sentence. You are free to > ignore the one in question, as you said you had until this thread > (your post #178644). > > But this particular thread is about a sentence that jumped out at > quite a few people and that (as I pointed out in my last post) has > prominence both of placement in the book and as the final word of a > rather large story arc. Geoff: You see, I would place Harry's last sentence -and the sandwich idea, which was not spoken but a thought, on the same level as the last sentence of LOTR: 'He (Sam) drew a deep breath, "Well, I'm back," he said.' (ROTK "The Grey Havens") This goes in the category of "I've had a long, tiring spell of action. I would like to put my feet up and relax." Which is precisely the interpretation I put on Harry's last comment. If people feel that they wish to read into this statement that Harry, by expressing a feeling that he would welcome someone - like, say, Molly or Kreacher or, if he had lived, Dobby - offering to make a cup of tea and cut a slice of cake for him is undermining the structure of the Wizarding world, then that is *their* privilege and choice. Personally, I just see this argument (using the word in its best sense) as a storm in a teacup, making a mountain out of a molehill and my use of the phrase "Hell's bells" is not emphatic. I say it in a tired voice, accompanied by a sigh and a feeling of d?j? vu which is *my* privilege and choice. :-) Geoff Yearning for the long-lost days of pre-HBP when we could have dignified discussions on the location of Hogwarts and the Riddle Orphanage and comforting myself with the fact that Harry didn't die... Hot chocolate is called for in copious amounts. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 31 14:41:56 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:41:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's bed (Was: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178731 --- 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.... From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 15:07:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:07:08 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178732 > Geoff: > If people feel that they wish to read into this statement that Harry, > by expressing a feeling that he would welcome someone - like, say, > Molly or Kreacher or, if he had lived, Dobby - offering to make a cup > of tea and cut a slice of cake for him is undermining the structure of > the Wizarding world, then that is *their* privilege and choice. > > Personally, I just see this argument (using the word in its best sense) > as a storm in a teacup, making a mountain out of a molehill and my > use of the phrase "Hell's bells" is not emphatic. I say it in a tired voice, > accompanied by a sigh and a feeling of d?j? vu which is *my* privilege > and choice. :-) Magpie: Isn't it clear that we know it's a storm in a teacup according to canon, where owning a slave is a perfectly fine thing? Harry is thinking of Kreacher bringing him a sandwich--not "someone," not Molly (the recently bereaved mother), not Dobby (his freed comrade in arms who died heroically saving his life), his personal slave. If it's no big deal why the need to write out that aspect out of the line? Own the line if it's no big deal. If Frodo had not gone away at the end of LOTR and *he* had ended the book happily climbing into bed and thinking Sam might bring him a sandwich I wouldn't be trying to re-write Sam's relationship to Frodo by saying that Frodo's just idly hoping a sandwich will drop out of the sky but he accidentally said Sam's name. I'd assume that Frodo, as Sam's master, was going to ask his manservant to make him a sandwich. Which is what Harry's doing. As it happens, Sam is *not* Frodo's servant (he was never his slave) at the end of LOTR. Frodo has made Sam his heir and now he is the master of Bag End. But I think everyone understands that it's not supposed to be a big deal. (In an earlier interview JKR said the House Elves are about slavery and she is aware that people have strong feelings about that so it's an odd choice for a "no big deal" line.) However, as the last line of course it's important. Sam's "I'm back" would not be any less important if he'd just thought it, just different. His saying it out loud just underlines all the Sam isn't saying to his family but that we understand from his line. Harry is thinking of putting his feet up and going back to his comfortable life. But if the last line has someone's domestic bliss including having the servant bring him a sandwich then that's part of the picture of domestic bliss. I don't see how this can be described as reading anything into it or creating a storm in a teacup--that seems just like calling a spade a spade. I think you have to do far more work to make it about anything but Harry thinking about asking his slave to make him a sandwich the way said slave has done many times before when Harry was feeling peckish. It is NOT "undermining the structure of the wizarding world" at all. Quite the contrary. It shows in one more way that Harry has taken his place in the structure of the Wizarding World--his place at the top. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 15:31:59 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:31:59 -0000 Subject: Defining the Other and peeking into Forests (was:Re: A sandwich) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178733 > >>Lizzyben: > > > > In this crazy world, the worst stereotypes about "the Other" are > > actually true. > > > >>Prep0strus: > > When you say the stereotypes about 'the Other' are true, it > for me negates the idea of them being a true 'other'. Betsy Hp: Hmm... Okay I've been thinking [flee! flee for your lives!!] and I might be twisting what both you and Lizzyben are meaning when you say "Other". But if you take the "Other" as the shadow self or character or group in a story, than I don't think we the reader can just arbitrarily pick who the representation is going to be. Instead, the text will make it clear. And IMO, JKR clearly gives Slytherin house that role. [seriously run! she's bringing up slytherin!!!] I think that gets established quite early on in PS/SS. The second wizard Harry ever meets (Draco) is destined for Slytherin (the first, Hagrid, is of course a Gryffindor). Harry's worst fear at that point is being put in Slytherin. And then, just to drive that point home, he has a dream (that he for some reason forgets) featuring the three main Slytherin characters (Draco, Snape, Voldemort). What got me thinking in the first place was Pippin mentioning fairy stories and I said that JKR avoided the deep dark forest far too carefully for me to agree that this series fits the bill. My opinion still is that she does avoid the forest as much as possible, but as I thought about it I realized that Harry does tiptoe into the forest a few times. And in just about every case, a Slytherin is involved. His first foray was with Draco by his side (when he witnesses the Voldemort controlled Quirrell drinking the Unicorn's blood in PS/SS). And his last one was following Snape's sending (when he dove into frigid waters to retrieve the Gryffindor sword). So I'd say it's pretty clear that the role of "Other" is firmly taken by the Slytherins. What's really interesting, IMO [for the love of God, hide the children!], is that it also seems that Slytherin represents womanhood. I'm um, going to be mentioning genitalia -- just to give you a heads up. [...!?!] IIRC, forests in fairy stories tend to represent sexual awakening or puberty, right? I find it interesting that the first activity Harry witnesses in the forest is a blood letting done by a Slytherin and accompanied by a Slytherin. And he's rescued by a stand in for masculinity, a Centaur. I think this could be seen as Harry's first exposure to sex. It's deviant of course, since Voldemort's involved. And since the other player is a Unicorn, I think we're looking at a rape of innocence. (No wonder both boys are terrified.) At this point I think you could argue that rather than being specifically female, Slytherin in this scene is representing (deviant) human sexuality in toto. I lean towards it being female myself (recognizing I'm on shaky ground) because it's a mouth that gets bloody. So... yeah, basically I'm saying Harry and Draco get scared by a sexually mature vagina and Harry is rescued by a penis. (How's *that* for overanalyzing? ) But that last image of Harry in the forest in DH is pretty open-shut, I think. Harry dives into deep water to pull out (rescue) a large sword. We know the whole thing's been set up by a Slytherin (Snape) as a test of Harry's Gryffindor-ship. That the water is so cold it could kill Harry, that he's also strangled by another Slytherin artifact (the locket), saved by a fellow (male) Gryffindor, and manages to save the sword is telling, IMO. In this case, Harry faces down the killer vagina and rescues the penis. The coldness, the strangulation: this is not a friendly look at the female at all, IMO. And I think that fits with how JKR treated the "water" house in the end. In Western mythology water is associated with the female. It represents both birth (birth waters) and death (the liquifaction of a decomposing corpse), and in Western society both birth and death have been traditionally overseen by women. (It's changed a bit now, but our story-telling tropes and myths are still affected by long ago traditions.) JKR tied Slytherin quite firmly to the female. Just as she tied Gryffindor quite firmly to the male. Because her hero was a Gryffindor, his "other" had to be (and through the text clearly was, IMO), Slytherin. But instead of embracing his other, instead of facing his fears of the other, Harry walked away. Fought his way free the way the story goes, honestly. So hmm... maybe the Potterseries *is* a fairy story? But if so, than it's a failed one where the hero refuses to face up to his sexual fears; kills, ignores and does whatever necessary to fully sublimate his sexual counterpart; and ends up happily stuck in childhood dreams of a game of "house". It's a story about a boy who never grows up. Huh. I guess in the end, Harry never found his Wendybird (or maybe he just succeeded in killing her?). Betsy Hp (posting this from work ::looks around shiftily:: -- pretty sure this post will get her branded seriously wacko ::looks around shiftily:: -- and wondering how the hell's she's going to rename this thread...) [i *warned* you!] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 31 15:41:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:41:00 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: Magpie: > But I think everyone understands that it's not supposed to be a big > deal. (In an earlier interview JKR said the House Elves are about > slavery and she is aware that people have strong feelings about that > so it's an odd choice for a "no big deal" line.) However, as the > last line of course it's important. Sam's "I'm back" would not be > any less important if he'd just thought it, just different. His > saying it out loud just underlines all the Sam isn't saying to his > family but that we understand from his line. Harry is thinking of > putting his feet up and going back to his comfortable life. But if > the last line has someone's domestic bliss including having the > servant bring him a sandwich then that's part of the picture of > domestic bliss. I don't see how this can be described as reading > anything into it or creating a storm in a teacup--that seems just > like calling a spade a spade. I think you have to do far more work > to make it about anything but Harry thinking about asking his slave > to make him a sandwich the way said slave has done many times before > when Harry was feeling peckish. It is NOT "undermining the structure > of the wizarding world" at all. Quite the contrary. It shows in one > more way that Harry has taken his place in the structure of the > Wizarding World--his place at the top. Geoff: This takes us right back to where I started. What you have written is how you view the matter. I view it in a different light and we both have the right to hold our own views on this. You talk of "Harry is thinking of putting his feet up and going back to his comfortable life." I don't actually recall Harry having had a particularly comfortable life; one way and another, he's had a pretty grotty time of it so the thought of putting his feet up might especially appeal to him. I think many of us reached the "agree to disagree" point over the differing interpretations of DH some time ago and reiterating the same arguments ad infinitum is not likely to change our own individual takes of the situation. From kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 14:49:43 2007 From: kattygeltmeyer at gmail.com (Katty Geltmeyer) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:49:43 +0100 Subject: halloween present from jk.Rowling Message-ID: <000301c81bcd$4746d850$b14677d5@kattyw4j8cy6ca> No: HPFGUIDX 178735 On the website of j.k. Rowling you can find a timeturner behind the room of requirement-door (cf. do not disturb-sign is gone) and with this timeturner, you can see (and play with) the puzzles you found during the last door-openings. You can also find an archive of the Wizards of the month. Happy Halloween! (If you want to answer something I posted, do so off-list, please, I only receive the special notices). Katty From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 16:38:33 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:38:33 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > If people feel that they wish to read into this statement that Harry, > by expressing a feeling that he would welcome someone - like, say, > Molly or Kreacher or, if he had lived, Dobby - offering to make a cup > of tea and cut a slice of cake for him is undermining the structure of > the Wizarding world, then that is *their* privilege and choice. Montavilla47: Actually, it's the opposite. Harry isn't undermining the structure of the Wizarding World, he's sliding into his proper place within it-- as a student at Hogwarts, and as a slave-owner. It tells us that Harry is a decent bloke, who, after saving the world wants nothing more than a good sleep and a bit to eat. Not glory, not riches, not nookie. Just simple, modest desires. Odysseus, returning from his twenty-year journey would be as modest. He'd have a slave bring him his slippers and a cup of wine. And think no more about the issue of slavery than Harry does. Nor would we, knowing that slavery was the prevalent system in Ancient Greece, and that the Odyssey is not an anti-slavery tract. Where it's problematic is when we're given House-Elf slavery as an issue through *two* books in a seven book series. When we're not only encouraged to question the House-Elf system, but forced to confront it through several arguments and scenes based on Hermione and Ron's conflict. And, it's just plain weird, as Magpie points out, that Hermione's original position (House-Elf slavery is bad!) switches to Ron's original position (House-Elf slavery is okay, it's only bad to if you abuse your Master position) without anyone noticing that it's changed and with Hermione rewarding Ron for "switching" to a position that he held all along. By presenting the argument as something readers are forced to consider from both sides--with Hermione's original position (House-Elf Slavery=bad!) undermined by what we what we are shown (freeing Winky only destroys her; Kreacher goes from bitter and crazy under a "bad" master to happy, helpful, and downright kickass under a "good" master), the most obvious message from the text is that slavery is fine as long as the masters understand their position and act properly. I can see this being a good message--particularly for those young readers who are born into a slave society (as masters). I could see this being a wholesome message for a young boy who lived in the Edwardian period, when he was expected by right of birth, to have servants and hopefully not abuse the privilege. Montavilla47 From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 17:12:59 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:12:59 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/Defining the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178737 > Adam (Prep0strus) wrote: > > And what you said - that these groups actually > > ARE what they say they are... well, that doesn't > > mean something BAD. It's just saying - a person > > who seems like a bigot is a bigot. > > Del replies: > And that to me is an *extremely* BAD message to > send, because its ramifications are appalling. Prep0strus: When I read over what I wrote, I realized it certainly doesn't sound very good... but I actually take issue with your examples - I'll try to explain. Del: > Examples: > > * I don't like your opinion on that one matter, > so I classify you as a bigot and that's it. > > * I don't understand where you're coming from > on this matter, so I classify you as a bigot. > > * I don't care what particular reasons you may > have to think differently than I do, you're just a bigot. > > And so on. In general: "don't hesitate to judge > a book by its cover." Nasty. > > > She didn't make them one group that > > would be associated with a real life > > group to which she was assigning bigotry. > > No, but she did associate particular traits with > Slytherin. The concept of Muggleborns is a purely > fictitious one, but the Slytherins are Sorted based > on some very real things. > > Del > Prep0strus: The one that seems most valid to me is 'don't hesitate to judge a book by its cover'. That actually turns out to have been true... except that she's used 'don't judge a book by its cover' several times over the series, so I think readers still get that message, even if in the overall series, the seeming bad guys really are just bad guys. One of the primary themes of SS/PS is don't judge a book by its cover, based on Snape... and the theme could be observed also in CoS(Lockheart), PoA(Sirus), and DH(Snape again). Your other examples... while they exhibit a lack of depth in her writing, I don't necessarily agree have to be the worst thing in the world. The issues she brings up aren't very 'debatable'. I don't particularly CARE why Slytherins think these things. Maybe I should, and maybe if she had invested more in that, the story would be more interesting... but I don't need the reasons or explanations or background to know that what they're thinking is wrong. Their bigotry, as defined in the series, is flat out incorrect. They have an irrational dislike of people who were born to people who weren't wizards. The best explanation from Voldemort is that they 'stole' magic. It's a completely arbitrary bigotry which they use to justify treating other people poorly, and I think it's wrong. JKR thinks it's wrong, and that's it. Perhaps a more powerful piece of fiction would have delved into the societal and historical causes of this, but JKR was writing a simpler story. She had characters who were bigoted and mean to another group for no good reason, and is saying - that's wrong. Not sophisticated, but also not a horrible message. As for what you say about the traits associated with Slytherin... well, I'm going to go again with 'I don't care'. Maybe it's because I never identified with Slytherin, but I think their traits are terrible, and I don't care if they're associated with bad things. I think intelligence and wit are shown in a positive enough light that no one who considers themselves 'cunning' (who considers themselves cunning, anyway?) is going to be offended and think - JKR thinks cunning people are bigots! And people who are ambitious have only the twins - not to mention the trio, along with others - to look at to realize that ambition itself is not wrong. It is the unchecked ambition of Slytherins. And I fully agree - being willing to do anything to achieve what you want is wrong and evil, and I'm ok with that being associated with terrible people. Betsy Hp: Hmm... Okay I've been thinking [flee! flee for your lives!!] and I might be twisting what both you and Lizzyben are meaning when you say "Other". But if you take the "Other" as the shadow self or character or group in a story, than I don't think we the reader can just arbitrarily pick who the representation is going to be. Instead, the text will make it clear. And IMO, JKR clearly gives Slytherin house that role. [seriously run! she's bringing up slytherin!!!] Prep0strus: I think the other can be a lot of things, and people can make their associations. And I understand why many people consider Slytherins the other of the story. However, again, reading the books as much more simplistically (which is where I've ended up thinking the books belong), I believe the other of the wizarding world is muggleborns. There are huge reasons to assume there are much more 'othered others', including goblins, centaurs, elves, and giants... but I now believe JKR was telling a very straightforward story about bigotry being wrong - and she set up Muggleborns as the group which is persecuted by a segment of the main wizarding population. By giants appearing to actually be bad and elves possibly satisfied in their place, I think she was removing them from the literary equation (in a flawed manner). But the Muggleborns stand in for those oppressed in the real world. Betsy HP: JKR tied Slytherin quite firmly to the female. Just as she tied Gryffindor quite firmly to the male. Because her hero was a Gryffindor, his "other" had to be (and through the text clearly was, IMO), Slytherin. But instead of embracing his other, instead of facing his fears of the other, Harry walked away. Fought his way free the way the story goes, honestly. So hmm... maybe the Potterseries *is* a fairy story? But if so, than it's a failed one where the hero refuses to face up to his sexual fears; kills, ignores and does whatever necessary to fully sublimate his sexual counterpart; and ends up happily stuck in childhood dreams of a game of "house". It's a story about a boy who never grows up. Huh. I guess in the end, Harry never found his Wendybird (or maybe he just succeeded in killing her?). Prep0strus: I had no idea where to snip, or what to show of your theory. I really don't have much of an idea of what to say about it, either. Interesting, I suppose. I don't see it at all, and don't agree, but interesting. Really, I have a tough time equating the houses to any four equal things that exist in other forms. This is because the houses are not equal at all. So I've never found it easy to make Slytherin a water sign, because all signs have positive traits, and I don't see any in Slytherin. Jumping from water to female... ok. But it gets further and further away from what actually exists on the page. Just like the assumptions that Fleur is watery, and we assume Slytherin is watery, so that makes Fleur like Slytherin, so Fleur's good qualities must be Slytherin qualities, even though we don't see them in an actual Slytherin. Too convoluted. If Slytherin was going to represent women, and women as evil, well... we should have a more prominent female in that role. Bella's crazy, but she's not a powerful enough force in the story next to our real Slytherins - Snape and Draco and Voldy. As for the rest... people and things are cut and bleed in adventure stories. I don't see how every time something bleeds it is tied to menstruation in some way. Voldy the Slytherin is a menstruating rapist? And... Harry faces a killer vagina and rescues a penis? Gah. I would never in a million years have looked at that scene like that... if he's the male entering the female pool... I dunno. I've never thought of sex as 'rescuing the penis'. I'll tell you, that was an interesting read. I'm not sure how it defined the other, and I don't think any of that was in JKR's head, but... wow. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 17:56:29 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:56:29 -0000 Subject: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178738 > Montavilla47: > Nor would we, knowing that slavery was the prevalent system in > Ancient Greece, and that the Odyssey is not an anti-slavery > tract. > > Where it's problematic is when we're given House-Elf slavery > as an issue through *two* books in a seven book series. When > we're not only encouraged to question the House-Elf system, but > forced to confront it through several arguments and scenes > based on Hermione and Ron's conflict. zgirnius: Make that, FOUR books in a seven-book series, please. CoS, GoF, OotP, and DH all have major subplots having to do with House Elves, their enslavement, and the negative consequences thereof. HBP keeps the issue simmering, without adding anything new to our understanding, so I will not count it. Why a parenthetic thought of Kreacher and a sandwich should wipe out the elf-related contents of those four books, including a dramatic development *in the same chapter* as the sandwich thought, is not clear to me. > Montavilla: > And, it's just plain weird, as Magpie points out, that Hermione's > original position (House-Elf slavery is bad!) switches to Ron's > original position (House-Elf slavery is okay, it's only bad to if > you abuse your Master position) without anyone noticing that > it's changed and with Hermione rewarding Ron for "switching" > to a position that he held all along. zgirnius: Hermione never changes her mind about House Elf slavery being bad. The last words we hear her utter on the subject, as I recall, are these: > DH, "Kreacher's Tale": > "Stop him - stop him!" Hermione cried. "Oh, don't you see now how > sick it is, the way they've got to obey?" -and- > "I've said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did...and so did Sirius." zgirnius: The latter is saying humans should treat house-elves as though they had feelings just as deep and as real as humans do (what we have been told waws Sirius's mistake with Kreacher); the former is an objection to the enslavement itself. Harry did not make Kreacher punish himself, to provoke Hermione's plea she stop him. Whatever it is that binds the house-elves did that, and Harry has to actively intervene to stop it. And that whatever is what is 'sick' in her view. Hermione rewards Ron for thinking that the house-elves should be sent to safety, when Harry raises the possibility of sending them into battle. This is a huge step up from the out of sight, out of mind attitude of the wizards that Ron had represented. The issue of freeing them does not come up (though sending them away is closer to freeing them than doing nothing, because, as the example of Winky in GoF shows, it is difficult for her to even act to protect herself if she does not have orders to do so). > Montavilla: > By presenting the argument as something readers are forced > to consider from both sides--with Hermione's original > position (House-Elf Slavery=bad!) undermined by what we > what we are shown (freeing Winky only destroys her; Kreacher > goes from bitter and crazy under a "bad" master to happy, > helpful, and downright kickass under a "good" master), the > most obvious message from the text is that slavery is fine > as long as the masters understand their position and act > properly. zgirnius: Kreacher, under a better master, becomes not only happy, helpful, and kickass, but more able to act independently, as the choice of the house elves to join the fight, a choice made without the influence of any humans, demonstrates. That's the step in the right direction we are shown in the final chapter of the series. This action suggests that Kreacher and the elves he led might someday accept freedom as their due, unlike poor Winky who had freedom thrust upon her when she did not want it and had not been at all prepared for it by her life. Kreacher and his fellow are explicitly fighting for themselves - against a Dark Lord who would oppress them, and inspired by the memory of a human who would protect them. An idea only Dobby had, when we met him in CoS. From liatris39 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 16:02:38 2007 From: liatris39 at yahoo.com (liatris39) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:02:38 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178739 Hi all! I have enjoyed the many posts and lively discussions! I have a question, does anyone have a favorite HP quote? At work the other day, a co-worker quoted Arthur Weasley after a certain supervisor made a stupid announcement. "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its head!" Although AW was referring to Tom Riddle's diary, the supervisor in question often has his head up his *&% or someone elses. lol What are your favorite HP quotes? Liatris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 31 18:07:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:07:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178740 > > Betsy Hp wrote: > > Honestly, I thought her stuff about uniting the houses and her > > dwelling on the fact that the four houses represent the four > > elements is completely contradicted by the text. > > 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! Pippin: Perhaps your mind was reeling so much that you didn't take in the explanation of how the banners came to be there? Those whom Neville invited into the RoR over the two weeks in which he hid out there were already members of Dumbledore'sArmy. "But it's expanded as more and more of the D.A. have arrived." Despite graffiti-ing "Join Dumbledore's Army" on the walls, Neville had not accepted any new members. There was no chance for Slytherins to join Neville in the RoR. There do not HAVE to be any Slytherins in the DA for Slytherins to be opposed to Voldemort. It'd be like assuming English Jews were against parliamentary government in the early Victorian era because none of them served. They *couldn't* serve because they were excluded. Betsy HP: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178712 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. 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:: Betsy Hp: Apparently, after living in a house with a house-elf happily being your slave, you become totally cool with it. Harry defines Kreature as his slave. He's a good boy so he's not into beating Kreature, but he's very cool with Kreature serving him. So the system works for Harry. 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. Sure it's nice to have the kitchen kept all tidy and sandwiches on demand. Sure, some slaves develop a slave mentality and don't object to slavery any more. But it's like the famous description of capitalism as a dead herring: "It shines and stinks." 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? Do you see the need for a scare campaign like the ones they used to use against illegal drugs, where every aspect had to be described as horrifying lest people think they should try 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. That Harry doesn't feel guilty for wanting Kreacher to get him a sandwich doesn't bother me -- what does Kreacher care whether Harry feels guilty or not? Actually, it's worse than that. Kreacher would be upset and blame himself for master's unhappiness. If the book had ended with Neville thinking that maybe Mum would give him a gum wrapper, would that mean he was okay with her insanity? And I don't see, and no one has explained, how wanting a sandwich at the end of a day when he's terminally exhausted and has just saved the world, means that when Harry gets up the next morning he won't be just as aware of the drawbacks of slavery as he was when he saw Kreacher punishing himself. We haven't forgotten, so why should he? > >>Pippin: > The Slytherins walked out because McGonagall told them to leave. > Betsy Hp: Because they'd shown themselves as baddies. (Or are you suggesting McGonagall is a baddie now?) So... Hagrid and Ron were right. Pippin: McGonagall wasn't a baddie, but she was wrong. Wrong to believe that Snape had murdered Dumbledore, wrong to behave as if he had corrupted all of Slytherin House. If you'll remember, the whole school had drawn their wands and were pointing them at the Slytherin Table, not just at Pansy. What could they do then, except go quietly? Did McGonagall give the impression that she would delay the evacuation if there were objections? With Voldemort on his way, would that have been a good idea? Betsy Hp: Neither Death Eaters nor Voldemort were stopping changes occurring in the MoM. Pippin: Lucius was stopping implementation of Arthur's Muggle protection act. Arthur's career was stalled because he was too friendly to Muggles. Kingsley Shacklebolt had to be distant from Arthur. Tonks and Lupin thought their presence would give Scrimgeour an excuse to hassle Harry. The threat of DE's made the WW reluctant to stop relying on dementors for protection and afraid to find out if any Giants would want to change sides. Some of them *were* sympathetic, and maybe, if the embassy had had ministry support more could have been saved than Grawp. Betsy HP: Also, Harry just killed Voldemort. Packs of fanatic bigots could rise again because he did nothing to change or enlighten the primordal soup they rose out of, IMO. Pippin: That was Arthur's and Kingsley's job--seventeen year olds aren't ready to lead the WW, no matter how good they are at destroying horcruxes. What Harry did was give those who were prepared the opportunity to do it. Betsy Hp: The epilogue reflects that by showing that neither the MoM nor Slytherin has changed. Pippin: Slytherin has changed, since we no longer see people who think werewolf descendants ought to be pruned, or Weasleys should be insulted on sight or that Mudbloods ought to be kept out of Hogwarts. Remember, if it's not in canon, it doesn't exist Betsy Hp: The idea that they needed to change is so unimportant to JKR she doesn't even address it. Instead we learn the names of the Trio's children. Pippin: One of which is Albus Severus, showing a great change in Harry's attitude towards Slytherin. Unless you make the imperialist assumption that you have to be a Gryffindor to be truly brave (which Harry does not make even if Dumbledore does) I don't see how that makes Snape a sort of second-rate Gryffindor. "Slytherins are brave" said Phineas, and he ought to know. Salazar was wrong to think that only purebloods could be powerful and trustworthy, Gryffindor was wrong to think he could tell who was going to have brave deeds to their name at the age of eleven. Neither is shown as wrong to think that being powerful, brave and trustworthy is good, though canon does regard it as more important to be brave and trustworthy than it is to be powerful. I don't see that as a bigoted or imperialist message. As for the changes in the MoM, JKR had so many that she felt they'd be cramped in the epilogue, "shoehorned in" as she put it. That would be another story, one that's about politics rather than adventures. I don't think we need Advise and Consent for the Potterverse, although if someone wants to do the fanfic it's okay with me. Somehow I don't think that nineteen years of committee meetings, special reports, speeches to the Wizengamot, and fume-filled rooms is what the majority of JKR's audience wants to read about I want to expand a little further on why I said it didn't matter about the reader's attitude towards Slytherin. If you see Slytherins as victims of bigotry and don't think that Harry did enough, the upshot is still a feeling on your part that bigotry should be fought. OTOH, if you see the Slytherins as villains because they represent bigots and amoral power-seekers, you still have the feeling that bigotry should be fought. It doesn't matter who you see as the *fictional* victims or villains, IOW, as long as you get the idea that the *real life* victims of prejudice should be protected from the real life bigots and from those who are more interested in getting power than in using it wisely. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 18:45:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:45:15 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/Defining the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178741 > >>Prep0strus: > > I don't particularly CARE why Slytherins think these things. Maybe > I should, and maybe if she had invested more in that, the story > would be more interesting... but I don't need the reasons or > explanations or background to know that what they're thinking is > wrong. > Betsy Hp: Which works fine in a black and white work where the entire point of the story is to see the bad guys get smashed and see the good guys win. And that's the story I believe JKR ended up handing us in the end. It's not the way to look at bigotry, because... well, you're not actually looking at it are you? (The musical "SouthPacific" turns takes a deeper look in just one song, IMO.) But it also means that you can't really look at the story and say it's theme is obviously "bigotry". It can't be if it's not actually delt with. Instead it's just one more icky trait of the bad guys. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But if you take the "Other" as the shadow self or character or > > group in a story, than I don't think we the reader can just > > arbitrarily pick who the representation is going to be. > > Instead, the text will make it clear. > > > >>Prep0strus: > I think the other can be a lot of things, and people can make their > associations. > Betsy Hp: Yes, which is why for the purpose of my post I specifically defined "other" to be the shadow. Which you can't just pick and choose at will, there needs to be text to support your view. > >>Prep0strus: > However, again, reading the books as much more simplistically > (which is where I've ended up thinking the books belong), I believe > the other of the wizarding world is muggleborns. > Betsy Hp: As far as those they fear and keep downtrodden? Hmm... maybe *muggles* but going by Hermione's experience throughout the book, I don't buy it. DH tried to kind of shoe-horn this thing in but since we didn't see Hermione treated any differently from her classmates through the rest of the books, it strikes me that it's more a pasted on "other". Honestly, I think the simplest and most straightforward reading is Slytherin as the *shadow* of the story. And I'd say the simplest more straightforward reading of the WW's *other* would probably be muggles. But I really was going more for a literary critism, in which case I'm looking at the books not the world, if that makes sense. > >>Prep0strus: > ...but I now believe JKR was telling a very straightforward story > about bigotry being wrong... > Betsy Hp: If we're going with straightforward I'd say bigotry is more a prop to help us identify the bad guys. I wouldn't say the story is *about* bigotry being wrong. This is something we're supposed to come into the books already understanding. Again, it's not explored enough to be about it, IMO. > >>Prep0strus: > > Really, I have a tough time equating the houses to any four equal > things that exist in other forms. This is because the houses are > not equal at all. > Betsy Hp: You don't have to do it; JKR does is for you. She says it in the interviews and then the houses themselves quite strongly reflect their elements throughout the series. Slytherin is quite firmly associated with water. That they're not equal, not neutral is an issue, I agree. I've decided that JKR linked the houses with the elements in a sort of instinctive way as a story-teller (it's classic and pretty basic symbolism, frankly) and then either thought it was kind of neat and consciously continued the theme, or was meaning to go somewhere else with it, changed her mind, and decided to just ignore the implications. > >>Prep0strus: > > Jumping from water to female... ok. But it gets further and > further away from what actually exists on the page. Betsy Hp: No it doesn't. Not if you're coming at it with the view of literary criticism: my reading is actually a pretty simple analyzing of what is actually on the page. Associating water to female is like in art associating the color blue to the Virgin Mary. It's standard. > >>Prep0strus: > Just like the assumptions that Fleur is watery, and we assume > Slytherin is watery, so that makes Fleur like Slytherin, so Fleur's > good qualities must be Slytherin qualities, even though we don't > see them in an actual Slytherin. Too convoluted. Betsy Hp: I agree, which is why I wouldn't make such an argument. If I were to link her to a house, I think I'd go with Ravenclaw because of air stuff. (I think there's more air tied to Fleur than water anyway.) If Slytherin were supposed to have good qualities, I'd expect to see them represented by an actual, on the page, Slytherin. > >>Prep0strus: > If Slytherin was going to represent women, and women as evil, > well... we should have a more prominent female in that role. > Betsy Hp: Doesn't have to work that way. All three prominant Slytherins have enough female traits to be going on with. Especially female sensuality, which is the evil (or at the very least really scary) for our hero. (And actually, putting your scary female stuff onto a male character can be pretty common for woman writers, IIRC.) > >>Prep0strus: > As for the rest... people and things are cut and bleed in adventure > stories. I don't see how every time something bleeds it is tied to > menstruation in some way. Betsy Hp: Not all the time, no. But you stick that blood onto an orifice tied into human sensuality, you have it take place in a deep, dark forest, you throw in a dying Unicorn? Then yes, I'd say you've got... > >>Prep0strus: > Voldy the Slytherin is a menstruating rapist? Betsy Hp: Exactly! (Isn't literary criticism fun? ) > >>Prep0strus: > And... Harry faces a killer vagina and rescues a penis? Gah. I > would never in a million years have looked at that scene like > that... if he's the male entering the female pool... I dunno. I've > never thought of sex as 'rescuing the penis'. Betsy Hp: Harry's not having sex with the pool. He's saving the symbol of his masculinity (the sword) from the evil and deathly female sensuality (the pool). It put in mind that animated flower scene from "Pink Floyd's The Wall" for me. Where the flower "eats" the protagonist. Only in this case, Harry won and his penis was safe. > >>Prep0strus: > I'll tell you, that was an interesting read. I'm not sure how it > defined the other, and I don't think any of that was in JKR's head, > but... wow. Betsy Hp: I doubt JKR consciously thought about the symbolism here. But she's steeped in Western literature and symbolism so it came through. (Usually the best symbolism comes floating up from the subconscious. Though I think good writers will sometimes stick stuff in purposefully to grab their readership.) Betsy Hp From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 18:52:04 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:52:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7B049796CA3942BC87E9892B9ACFCD89@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 178742 Liatris asks: > What are your favorite HP quotes? > > Liatris Great question, Liatris. I am a technical writer, and my favorite quote comes from OOTP, from Hagrid's description of his visit to the giants: "In any case, giants like Karkus -- overload 'em with information an' they'll kill yeh jus' to simplify things." I have this quote taped to my monitor at work as a reminder. Panhandle -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 19:37:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:37:13 -0000 Subject: Dobby's death WAS :Re: A sandwich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178743 > zgirnius: >> I will not count it. Why a parenthetic thought of Kreacher and a > sandwich should wipe out the elf-related contents of those four > books, including a dramatic development *in the same chapter* as the > sandwich thought, is not clear to me. Alla: Me either. Nice post Zara :) > zgirnius: > Kreacher and his fellow are explicitly fighting for themselves - > against a Dark Lord who would oppress them, and inspired by the > memory of a human who would protect them. An idea only Dobby had, > when we met him in CoS. Alla: Yeah, and I am also wondering how Dobby's death necessarily symbolise that freedom of the house elves is a non-issue now? I thought it is symbolising that fight for something new and progressive is always hard and often the best and the brightest, the ones who were in the first rows of fight will fall in the fight. Decembrists who wanted the happier life for ordinary people were executed and exiled in 1825 and nobody is saying that the fight just stopped and became non-issue with their deaths and they WERE one of the best and brightest and NO they did not get the support of the masses, for whom they started all that fight. They were pretty much alone in their fight, just as Dobby was in his desire for freedom. I mean, I never cared much for him, but I definitely cried when he died. Alla. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 20:10:27 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:10:27 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178744 Pippin wrote: > Perhaps your mind was reeling so much that you > didn't take in the explanation of how the banners > came to be there? Those whom Neville invited into > the RoR over the two weeks in which he hid out > there were already members of Dumbledore'sArmy. Del replies: I have two mixed answers to your explanation: one is "I don't care" and the other is "it doesn't change anything". Let me explain. 1. I don't care. I don't care what the reason is, what I care about is the result. And the result is: the Houses are not united and Slytherin House is explicitely shown to be the one House that won't oppose "evil" (whether LV or the Carrows or Snape or whatever incarnation one chooses to see Evil in), even in this very last hour of the War. Whatever the reason, the message is there: even when it comes to The Last Battle, Slytherin House still cannot be counted on to take any place along the other Houses, among the Good Guys. 2- It doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter what reason JKR invented to keep the Slytherins out, because that reason is just as problematic as the result. 2a- So Neville didn't take in anyone who wasn't in the DA? Er, why not?? If a Slytherin had demonstrated the will and the courage to face Evil, if a Slytherin had taken action to combat Evil, do you really think that Neville would have refused them simply because they hadn't been in the DA? I don't. It seems obvious to me that if Neville had found a Good Slytherin who showed willingness and desire to fight Evil along the DA members, he would have taken them in. But he didn't find such Slytherin. We know he didn't, because he doesn't mention one, because there isn't one in the RoR, and because not a single Slytherin rebels when McGonagall tells the Slytherins to get lost. That's 3 pieces of circumstancial evidence that, when put together, and especially when taken within the general context of "nothing Good ever comes out of Slytherin" that's been repeated and demonstrated over and over again throughout the series, point to one simple and obvious conclusion: out of all the Slytherins attending Hogwarts that year, not a single one was willing to fight Evil. 2b- Let's admit that Neville really didn't consider anyone who hadn't been a DA member, no matter their current credentials. Well, that takes us back to how the DA was formed. It takes us back to how nobody among the Good Guys even bothered to wonder whether there could be a Slytherin interested in joining the DA. It takes us back to how Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff joined together to form the DA, while Slytherin formed the Inquisitorial Squad. So it takes us back exactly to my original point: there was NEVER any intention, on JKR's part, to actually show the Houses united, to actually show a few token Slytherins joining the Good Guys to fight Evil. And my mind is still reeling at this idea. (And no, I don't count Snape and Slughorn as valid "token Slytherins", because we know Snape didn't join the Good Guys because he believed in their cause, while Slughorn is a pre-LV Slytherin - not to mention that he openly showed reluctance to even looking like he might support the Order!) Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 20:21:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:21:11 -0000 Subject: Token Slytherins WAS: Re: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178745 Del: > (And no, I don't count Snape and Slughorn as valid "token Slytherins", > because we know Snape didn't join the Good Guys because he believed in > their cause, while Slughorn is a pre-LV Slytherin - not to mention > that he openly showed reluctance to even looking like he might support > the Order!) Alla: While I certainly agree that Snape did not join good guys because he believed in their cause, after rereading DH I definitely think that he grew to believe the cause. Saving Lupin of all people? Telling that lovely portrait not to call Hermione mudblood? How many people you watched to die Severus? Lately only those I could not save. Oh yeah, to me it sounds like Snape believed in good guys cause all right. BUT, I do not want to spend too much time defending Snape of all characters, LOL. I cannot stand him and never will, I am just forced to admit these things with new canon. But Slughorn? Why he does not count? The man who during ONE year evolves from running from DE to fighting and duelling Voldemort of all DE. To me he certainly counts as Slytherin fighting for the right side. IMO of course. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 21:02:42 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:02:42 -0000 Subject: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178746 > >>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! > >>Pippin: > Perhaps your mind was reeling so much that you didn't take in > the explanation of how the banners came to be there? Betsy Hp: If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer. Her imagery overwhelmed her message. > >>Pippin: > Those whom Neville invited into the RoR over the two weeks in which > he hid out there were already members of Dumbledore's Army. > Betsy Hp: Heh. Or maybe I'm just confused as to what you think JKR's message is. Because yes, I totally agree that Slytherins weren't there because the rest of the school excluded them. Unity was not the issue (despite past books and previous interviews), excluding the bad guy Slytherins was the issue. > >>Pippin: > There do not HAVE to be any Slytherins in the DA for > Slytherins to be opposed to Voldemort. It'd be like assuming English > Jews were against parliamentary government in the early Victorian > era because none of them served. They *couldn't* serve because > they were excluded. Betsy Hp: Right. I think Sydney made this argument a while ago. Slytherins are to Hogwarts now what Jews were to pre-WWII Europeans. > >>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:: Betsy Hp: Yup! If it makes you feel any better, I also assume Harry's kicking back living off the interest of his buckets and buckets of inheritence money. It's not really a "default" more of a "if it were important JKR would actually put it in the book" assumption. > >>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. > > Sure it's nice to have the kitchen kept all tidy and sandwiches on > demand. Sure, some slaves develop a slave mentality and don't > object to slavery any more. But it's like the famous description > of capitalism as a dead herring: > > "It shines and stinks." > > 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? > Betsy Hp: Um, yeah, obviously. Harry's last thought was to make use of his slave. He didn't seemed too fussed about getting rid of the institution of house-elf slavery. Why should we assume he changes his mind? > >>Pippin: > Do you see the need for a scare campaign like the > ones they used to use against illegal drugs, where every > aspect had to be described as horrifying lest people think > they should try it? Betsy Hp: Goodness Pippin! Can you buy a slave on the street corner? > >>Pippin: > I think the description of Kreacher's suffering is sufficiently > memorable that Harry is never going to be okay with it. > Betsy Hp: And yet, he is. Kreature getting him a sandwich is a happy ending. > >>Pippin: > And I don't see, and no one has explained, how wanting a sandwich > at the end of a day when he's terminally exhausted and has just > saved the world, means that when Harry gets up the next morning he > won't be just as aware of the drawbacks of slavery as he was when > he saw Kreacher punishing himself. > Betsy Hp: Because he thought specifically of Kreature getting it for him. Because we never see that "next morning". And nineteen years later there's nothing to suggest Harry's unhappy about or working to change the status quo. > >>Pippin: > > The Slytherins walked out because McGonagall told them to leave. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > Because they'd shown themselves as baddies. (Or are you suggesting > McGonagall is a baddie now?) So... Hagrid and Ron were right. > >>Pippin: > McGonagall wasn't a baddie, but she was wrong. > Betsy Hp: What text shows that McGonagalls read of the Slytherins was wrong? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Neither Death Eaters nor Voldemort were stopping changes > > occurring in the MoM. > >>Pippin: > Lucius was stopping implementation of Arthur's Muggle protection > act. Arthur's career was stalled because he was too friendly to > Muggles. > Kingsley Shacklebolt had to be distant from Arthur. Tonks and > Lupin thought their presence would give Scrimgeour an excuse > to hassle Harry. > 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? Maybe? Dumbledore had more power until Lucius got to Fudge at the end of GoF, but then Lucius lost everything when he was exposed as a Death Eater at the end of OotP (wait, I think that's just one year). Scrimgeour may not have been Dumbledore's man (which, seeing what being such did to Fudge, I don't too much blame him) but he was no Death Eater's pawn either. I'm not saying progressive stuff happened at the MoM because as per the text, it never seemed to, but that wasn't because of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. I was always under the impression Voldemort tapped into prevalent WW thought rather than the other way around. > >>Betsy HP: > > Also, Harry just killed Voldemort. Packs of fanatic bigots > > could rise again because he did nothing to change or enlighten the > > primordal soup they rose out of, IMO. > >>Pippin: > That was Arthur's and Kingsley's job--seventeen year olds aren't > ready to lead the WW, no matter how good they are at destroying > horcruxes. What Harry did was give those who were prepared the > opportunity to do it. 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. > >>Betsy Hp: > > The epilogue reflects that by showing that neither the MoM nor > > Slytherin has changed. > >>Pippin: > Slytherin has changed, since we no longer see people who > think werewolf descendants ought to be pruned, or Weasleys > should be insulted on sight or that Mudbloods ought to be > kept out of Hogwarts. Remember, if it's not in canon, it > doesn't exist Betsy Hp: What is in canon is little James showing us that Slytherin is still the "bad" house. So yeah, I'm betting that the same old bigotry remains. Just, the Weasleys are ascendant now and Draco very firmly smashed down. As we see by Ron easily insulting Malfoys on sight and advising his daughter not to date one. > >>Betsy Hp: > > The idea that they needed to change is so unimportant to JKR she > > doesn't even address it. Instead we learn the names of the Trio's > > children. > >>Pippin: > One of which is Albus Severus, showing a great change in Harry's > attitude towards Slytherin. Betsy Hp: No, it shows a great change in Harry's attitude towards Snape. The Slytherin that nearly achieved Gryffindorness. > >>Pippin: > Unless you make the imperialist assumption that you have to be a > Gryffindor to be truly brave (which Harry does not make even if > Dumbledore does) I don't see how that makes Snape a sort of second- > rate Gryffindor. Betsy Hp: Well, first you make the imperialist assumption that you have to be a Gryffindor to be truely brave. Then you assume that, though he'd never *quite* get there, Snape did his best to become worthy of his Gryffindor masters. JKR made this all perfectly clear, Pippin. Hence Harry assuring his son that he could *choose* to be in the house of the brave. And hence the boy's first name being for that shining example of Gyrffindorness, Dumbledore. > >>Pippin: > > I want to expand a little further on why I said it didn't matter > about the reader's attitude towards Slytherin. > > If you see Slytherins as victims of bigotry and don't think > that Harry did enough, the upshot is still a feeling on your > part that bigotry should be fought. > > OTOH, if you see the Slytherins as villains because they represent > bigots and amoral power-seekers, you still have the feeling that > bigotry should be fought. > > It doesn't matter who you see as the *fictional* victims or > villains, IOW, as long as you get the idea that the *real life* > victims of prejudice should be protected from the real life bigots > and from those who are more interested in getting power than in > using it wisely. Betsy Hp: Right. But it does mean that this series is useless in the battle, and brings nothing new to the discussion. It's either JKR made such a hash of it she actually ended up writing an imperialistic pro- bigotry book by mistake. Or she had nothing to say about it at all. Either way, it means a reader shouldn't really look for bigotry as a guiding theme. At least, in my opinion. Betsy Hp From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 21:08:37 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's intent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40710311408n1c6f6747x6693da4248765a05@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178747 > > Del replies: >huge snip< Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and > Hufflepuff joined together to form the DA, while > Slytherin formed the Inquisitorial Squad. So it takes us > back exactly to my original point: there was NEVER any > intention, on JKR's part, to actually show the Houses > united, to actually show a few token Slytherins > joining the Good Guys to fight Evil. > > And my mind is still reeling at this idea. montims: OK - could we please back up a little? Where is it written that JKR did have the intention of showing the houses united? I know the sorting hat said once something about it would be nice, but why is everyone convinced JKR has let them down on something she had promised? Not denying it might be the case, but I must have missed it somewhere... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 31 21:20:11 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:20:11 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/House Elf Storyline/JKR's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178748 > Geoff: > This takes us right back to where I started. What you have written is > how you view the matter. I view it in a different light and we both have > the right to hold our own views on this. > > You talk of "Harry is thinking of putting his feet up and going back to > his comfortable life." I don't actually recall Harry having had a particularly > comfortable life; one way and another, he's had a pretty grotty time of it > so the thought of putting his feet up might especially appeal to him. > > I think many of us reached the "agree to disagree" point over the differing > interpretations of DH some time ago and reiterating the same arguments > ad infinitum is not likely to change our own individual takes of the situation. Magpie: This *isn't* where we see it differently and it's definitely not "back where we started" because we haven't been talking about whether or not Harry's had a hard life. My bad for sticking in the word "back" since of course Harry's life has been totally grotty. He tells us that often enough himself in case we missed it. (We're not going by the rule "Any year that you live in a castle is a good year" in this series.) This is not what the thread is about. Harry is for the first time going to have a less than grotty life if you prefer--the point was not whether or not he'd ever been comfortable but what form that comfort is going to take. Which I think Montavilla explained quite well: "It tells us that Harry is a decent bloke, who, after saving the world wants nothing more than a good sleep and a bit to eat. Not glory, not riches, not nookie. Just simple, modest desires. Odysseus, returning from his twenty-year journey would be as modest. He'd have a slave bring him his slippers and a cup of wine. And think no more about the issue of slavery than Harry does." Magpie: I don't see how looking at the line "thinking now only of the four- poster bed lying waiting for him in Gryffindor Tower, and wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there" and thinking that Harry is thinking of having Kreacher, whom we know is his personal slave, bring him a sandwich is a stretch while the more obvious reading is...well, anything but that. zgirnius: Make that, FOUR books in a seven-book series, please. CoS, GoF, OotP, and DH all have major subplots having to do with House Elves, their enslavement, and the negative consequences thereof. HBP keeps the issue simmering, without adding anything new to our understanding, so I will not count it. Why a parenthetic thought of Kreacher and a sandwich should wipe out the elf-related contents of those four books, including a dramatic development *in the same chapter* as the sandwich thought, is not clear to me. Magpie: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Kreacher, meanwhile, is still a loyal slave when Harry gets back to Hogwarts, and Harry slips back into the Master role again. 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. zgirnius: Hermione never changes her mind about House Elf slavery being bad. The last words we hear her utter on the subject, as I recall, are these: Magpie: It being "bad" is a bit general. If she had the same view she'd always had, she'd be trying to free Kreacher the way she consistently tried to free other elves. Kreacher stops being punished in DH because he comes to love Harry as his master and when he loves him he doesn't disobey him. Not wanting House Elves sadistically punished is not the same as demanding they all be free. (House Elves even again give the slavemasters a break here they don't get in real life because they're self-punishing.) zgirnius: Hermione rewards Ron for thinking that the house-elves should be sent to safety, when Harry raises the possibility of sending them into battle. Magpie: Which is silly of her, because Ron's the one who says "I'm uncovering these hats because they ought to KNOW what they're picking up." zgirnius: The issue of freeing them does not come up (though sending them away is closer to freeing them than doing nothing, because, as the example of Winky in GoF shows, it is difficult for her to even act to protect herself if she does not have orders to do so). 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: Kreacher, under a better master, becomes not only happy, helpful, and kickass, but more able to act independently, as the choice of the house elves to join the fight, a choice made without the influence of any humans, demonstrates. That's the step in the right direction we are shown in the final chapter of the series. This action suggests that Kreacher and the elves he led might someday accept freedom as their due, unlike poor Winky who had freedom thrust upon her when she did not want it and had not been at all prepared for it by her life. Magpie: Kreacher acted independently before he was Harry's slave in betraying Sirius, for instance. He's no more or less able to act independently now. House Elves are always able to act independently if they're doing something their Master wants or doesn't care about or if they're getting around the spell. If Harry didn't want Kreacher in the fight he could have still just said "No!" and Kreacher would have to obey or punish himself (and if Kreacher had joined the fight on the DEs side in Regulus' name, I'm pretty sure Harry would have ordered him to stop). Harry's being a good master doesn't make Kreacher less a slave, it makes him a slave with a better master. I can't see how that is any step towards freeing the House Elves. They've *always* acted on their personal convictions to an extent. It's nice knowing that your House Elf is doing something he likes when he's doing something you like, but it doesn't solve the slavery question. It just makes the House Elves a complication in the plot. zgirnius: Kreacher and his fellow are explicitly fighting for themselves - against a Dark Lord who would oppress them, and inspired by the memory of a human who would protect them. An idea only Dobby had, when we met him in CoS. 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. > Betsy Hp wrote: > > Honestly, I thought her stuff about uniting the houses and her > > dwelling on the fact that the four houses represent the four > > elements is completely contradicted by the text. > > 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! Pippin: There do not HAVE to be any Slytherins in the DA for Slytherins to be opposed to Voldemort. It'd be like assuming English Jews were against parliamentary government in the early Victorian era because none of them served. They *couldn't* serve because they were excluded. Magpie: They don't have to be in the DA for us to know that they're opposing Voldemort, but they do have to be shown opposing Voldemort. I simply do not see "Gryffindors keep Slytherins from opposing Voldemort when they want to" anywhere in the story. Why should I think they wanted to be fighting against Voldemort and were stopped only by McGonagall's sending them away? (Too bad they weren't this obedient when she was telling them not to play dirty at Quidditch.) This isn't real life, there's nothing there but what's on the page. It's actually totally not at all like assuming English Jews were against parliamentary government in the early Victorian era because none of them served. At all. In a number of ways. 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:: 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. Betsy Hp: Apparently, after living in a house with a house-elf happily being your slave, you become totally cool with it. Harry defines Kreature as his slave. He's a good boy so he's not into beating Kreature, but he's very cool with Kreature serving him. So the system works for Harry. 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? Pippin: Sure it's nice to have the kitchen kept all tidy and sandwiches on demand. Sure, some slaves develop a slave mentality and don't object to slavery any more. But it's like the famous description of capitalism as a dead herring: "It shines and stinks." 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? Do you see the need for a scare campaign like the ones they used to use against illegal drugs, where every aspect had to be described as horrifying lest people think they should try 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. I mean, what exactly is the drug analogy supposed to imply? No, I don't think I need a "scare campaign" to keep me from becoming a slave owner. That's not a pressing issue for me these days. But I also don't assume that anything that includes slavery or drugs must be making a clear, coherent anti-drug or anti-slavery message just because drugs and slavery are included. What's the big fall that Harry's heading for with Kreacher, exactly, now that he's been seduced by the attraction? Harry fixes Kreacher's suffering. He's not suffering with Harry as his master. Harry's not suffering with Kreacher as his slave. So everything's fine. Seems like the only anti-slavery part is where I, as the reader, am supposed to be anti-slavery before I start reading. Pippin: That Harry doesn't feel guilty for wanting Kreacher to get him a sandwich doesn't bother me -- what does Kreacher care whether Harry feels guilty or not? Actually, it's worse than that. Kreacher would be upset and blame himself for master's unhappiness. Magpie: How is this not a pro-slavery reading? You don't have a problem with Harry having a slave to do things for him. In fact, Harry is somehow helping Kreacher by ordering a sandwich, because as a slave Kreacher would blame himself for Harry's unhappiness at having to go sandwich- less (in ways he had no problem with Harry being served by others back in HBP). Sounds like your average slave-owner would be quite happy with that idea. Isn't Harry just doing the most responsible thing given the reality of his world? It's not his fault Kreacher was born to be owned and to serve; Harry's just doing him a favor by letting him serve him. No danger to Harry in being selfless that way, is there? No reason he should be not letting Kreacher wait on him if Kreacher wants to, right? What does that say about slavery, exactly? That it's evil that slaves are magically compelled to be servile and punish themselves (even if their masters don't want it!) when they don't obey and fall apart if left on their own, but that's the way it is so the slave master must suck it up and let them make them lunch? That there's no reason to not keep people in a subservient position if they don't demand better? Pippin: If the book had ended with Neville thinking that maybe Mum would give him a gum wrapper, would that mean he was okay with her insanity? Magpie: What does that mean? Pippin: And I don't see, and no one has explained, how wanting a sandwich at the end of a day when he's terminally exhausted and has just saved the world, means that when Harry gets up the next morning he won't be just as aware of the drawbacks of slavery as he was when he saw Kreacher punishing himself. We haven't forgotten, so why should he? Magpie: Not sure what drawbacks of slavery Harry will still be aware of you're referring to exactly here. Maybe I have forgotten them since he never mentions them or thinks about them. I would think that owning a slave that you have bring you sandwiches and being an abolitionist would be a bit of a conflict of interests. But good news for p.c. slave owners if it's not. Betsy Hp: Because they'd shown themselves as baddies. (Or are you suggesting McGonagall is a baddie now?) So... Hagrid and Ron were right. Pippin: McGonagall wasn't a baddie, but she was wrong. Wrong to believe that Snape had murdered Dumbledore, wrong to behave as if he had corrupted all of Slytherin House. Magpie: How do we know she was wrong about this? I think if McGonagall had mistakenly thought Gryffindor was the bad house they'd have come crashing right back into the school to fight and proved her wrong. Slytherin seemed to more prove her right by their behavior, save the few exceptions that proved the rule. Pippin: If you'll remember, the whole school had drawn their wands and were pointing them at the Slytherin Table, not just at Pansy. What could they do then, except go quietly? Did McGonagall give the impression that she would delay the evacuation if there were objections? With Voldemort on his way, would that have been a good idea? Magpie: They could stay back or come back, obviously. It's what most of the characters we know would have done. And if this was supposed to be a "Slytherin was wronged moment" I think they'd have done just that so that we'd see it was wrong. If I don't start out with the very conclusion I'm supposed to be proving (that slavery is wrong, that Slytherins were wronged) the books don't give it to me. Betsy Hp: Neither Death Eaters nor Voldemort were stopping changes occurring in the MoM. Pippin: Lucius was stopping implementation of Arthur's Muggle protection act. Arthur's career was stalled because he was too friendly to Muggles. Kingsley Shacklebolt had to be distant from Arthur. Tonks and Lupin thought their presence would give Scrimgeour an excuse to hassle Harry. The threat of DE's made the WW reluctant to stop relying on dementors for protection and afraid to find out if any Giants would want to change sides. Some of them *were* sympathetic, and maybe, if the embassy had had ministry support more could have been saved than Grawp. Magpie: So now that Voldemort's gone (again) canon actually shows me that all these wonderful changes are going to take place because the WW was on the verge of all this except for Voldemort, whom they thought was dead for years already, was actually alive? Too bad there's no sign of this in the books that I can see. I thought Lucius Malfoy was on the defensive in CoS. How exactly did Arthur get the act passed if Lucius is so in control? Betsy HP: Also, Harry just killed Voldemort. Packs of fanatic bigots could rise again because he did nothing to change or enlighten the primordal soup they rose out of, IMO. Pippin: That was Arthur's and Kingsley's job--seventeen year olds aren't ready to lead the WW, no matter how good they are at destroying horcruxes. What Harry did was give those who were prepared the opportunity to do it. Magpie: I'll have to read "How Arthur and Kingsley Enlightened the Wizarding World And Changed Everything That Needed To Be Changed After The Series Was Over" before I take that as canon. I think if it mattered to this story it'd be in there more explicitly. As of Harry's story Slytherins still suck on the whole and House Elves bring him sandwiches in bed. Betsy Hp: The epilogue reflects that by showing that neither the MoM nor Slytherin has changed. Pippin: Slytherin has changed, since we no longer see people who think werewolf descendants ought to be pruned, or Weasleys should be insulted on sight or that Mudbloods ought to be kept out of Hogwarts. Remember, if it's not in canon, it doesn't exist Magpie: We're not shown (too much that we can't explain it away) that they're not changed, so they could be changed. Daring way of getting that information across. Make the reader do all the work! I wish so many of these readings didn't seem to follow the same logic. Betsy Hp: The idea that they needed to change is so unimportant to JKR she doesn't even address it. Instead we learn the names of the Trio's children. Pippin: As for the changes in the MoM, JKR had so many that she felt they'd be cramped in the epilogue, "shoehorned in" as she put it. That would be another story, one that's about politics rather than adventures. I don't think we need Advise and Consent for the Potterverse, although if someone wants to do the fanfic it's okay with me. Somehow I don't think that nineteen years of committee meetings, special reports, speeches to the Wizengamot, and fume-filled rooms is what the majority of JKR's audience wants to read about Magpie: So she chose the things that were actually important to the story. Which was not the actual changes in the world which you're for some reason pretending would entail details about committee meetings, special reports, speeches to the Wizengamot, and fume-filled rooms. She didn't include it so it's not there. Pippin: I want to expand a little further on why I said it didn't matter about the reader's attitude towards Slytherin. If you see Slytherins as victims of bigotry and don't think that Harry did enough, the upshot is still a feeling on your part that bigotry should be fought. OTOH, if you see the Slytherins as villains because they represent bigots and amoral power-seekers, you still have the feeling that bigotry should be fought. It doesn't matter who you see as the *fictional* victims or villains, IOW, as long as you get the idea that the *real life* victims of prejudice should be protected from the real life bigots and from those who are more interested in getting power than in using it wisely. Magpie: Knowing "bigotry should be fought" doesn't tell you what bigotry is and how to fight it. -m From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 31 21:25:45 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:25:45 -0000 Subject: WHOSE DD is he? (Was: Re: Should JKR shut up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178749 Carol > Do her intentions even matter? I say they don't. The books exist to be > read, enjoyed (or hated) and interpreted, and her words should not, > IMO, control or limit our freedom of interpretation. Only what's on > the page should limit us,... allthecoolnamesgone That is abolutely right and as the Dallas New article says, it is why books are almost always better than films because when you read a book you dramatise it in your head and when you see the film it is never 'your film'. Whe I heard the 'Dumbledore is gay' announcement I just wanted to bang my head on the nearest hard object in utter despair at what JKR had done. I felt that she had unleashed a whole 'agenda' into the books that was not there until she spoke. Like Carole I had interpreted the whole DD/GG thing as two teenagers enraptured by discovering another person who shared so many of their views. Dumbledore was probably imagining himself with a future, as he saw it, of domestic enslavement ahead of him. Suddenly an intellectual equal arrives on his doorstep ( I don't imagine converstaions with Aberforth were exactly stimulating). There may have been a sexual element, there may not but 'frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'. By the time we meet Dumbledore he is an old man and appears celibate. He may as far as we know have been celibate his whole life or celibate after one experience in his teens. Why do we have to define someone as 'gay' on such limited evidence and in any case why is it assumed that his sexual orientation is the key definition of his character to which all else is secondary. Carol > As an aside, Snape seems asexual, too--celibate, repressed--with his > canonical love for Lily as explanation for his buttoned-up > personality, with sarcasm and an occasional outburst of anger as his > only release. I hope JKR never tells us that he had a loveless fling > with some other woman before Lily's death. That would ruin my > interpretation, or my imagined view, of his personality. Really, JKR, > I'd rather not know what you think may have happened off-page to him > or to anyone else. I don't want to know whether Tonks and Remus or > Bill and Fleur consummated their relationship before marriage, either. > Really, I don't. Such information would detract from rather than add > to my pleasure in reading the books. And, given that many of the > readers are children, I don't think it would be appropriate to reveal > those particular details, either. allthecoolnamesgone Yes but most of the world now can't seem to accept that there might be characters out there who aren't leaping into bed at every opportunity. Snape always seemed out of the 'Mr Chips' mould of school teachers (not Mr Chips in character though) and he was alone for years albeit having enjoyed a brief marriage. the other character who springs to mind is Howarth from 'To Serve them all my Days' by RF Delderfield. They were 'married' to their job. I intend to ignore anything else that JKR says. She wrote what she wrote and after 21/7/07 the rest was up to me. allthecoolnamesgone Karen Who when asked at the age of 45 by her employer to declare her sexual orientation on a 'Diversity questionaire' replied 'I haven't decided yet'. From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 22:41:20 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR and Slytherins in the final battle. Message-ID: <688576.53683.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 178750 > >>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! 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. What we do know if you read the passage that describes the room as Harry enters is that there are about thrity people in that room (and counting the trio there were orignially twenty-eight DA members) , which means Neville must have recruited a few new members because adding together those that graduated plus those that probably would not have been in that room (Zack Smith), plus the muggle-born or pseudo-muggle-born (Colin, Dean, Justin) there were not more then twenty DA members at the begining of the year. These were: Neville, Ginny, Luna, Seamus, Lavender, Parvati, Padma, Michael Corner, Anthony Goldstein, Terry Boot, Ernie MacMillian, Susan Bones, Hannah Abbot. Fourteen total. The trio was missing, Colin, Dennis and Justin were muggle born. Dean was thought to be and thus on the run. Cho, Angelina, Alicia, Katie Bell, Fred, George, and Marietta had graduated. Marietta is questionable as we don't know her year, but she is a traitor. Neville, Ginny and Luna managed to about double the numbers of available DA. They were probably mostly younger Gryffindors like Romidla and Demelza and Natalie MacDonald (and don't tell me JKR wouldn't have put Natalie in the DA in her mind if not on paper) plus say Jimmy Peakes who is mentioned by McGonagall as being too young to fight (but not join the DA maybe). But logic says one or two Slytherins could have joined and if so they would have been naturally shy when Harry was in the room and they would not have raised their banner, because to join the DA they would have had to lose almost all pride in their house. It is not something they would want to advertise if they want to get along with their fellow DA members. It would be very hard to convince the DA that a new Slytherin member was not a spy. And the Gyffs and Huffs would be suspicious perhaps of new Ravenclaws as well but not to the same extent. I always beleive that JKR was trying to be somewhat realistic in the portrayal of the actions of her characters in terms of psychology. I mean if you were a Slytherin would you have raised your banner? And yes I now that JKR has bad math and that thirty was just Harry's rough estimate but JKR would not I think have accidentily doubled the numbers. But I will admit any Slytheirns that did stand up would have to be extraordinary brave and thus belong in Gryffindor. But JKR made sure that there are cowards in Gryffidor too. Every has has its heroes and cowards. Hufflepuff has Ernie and Hannah as its haeroes and Zaxk as its coward. Ravenclaw has Marietta as its coward and Luna and Michael and to a lesser extent Cho as its heroes. And Slytherin has Snape and Slughorn and Regulus and to a lesser extent Draco. And you can take the passage where Draco is saved by Ron and company as an awkward or half-hearted or failed sneaky attempt by Draco to do something to a Death Eater. DA Jones __________________________________________________ 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 delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 31 20:44:01 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:44:01 -0000 Subject: A sandwich/Defining the Other In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178751 Prep0strus wrote: > The one that seems most valid to me is 'don't > hesitate to judge a book by its cover'. That > actually turns out to have been true... except > that she's used 'don't judge a book by its cover' > several times over the series, so I think readers > still get that message, even if in the overall > series, the seeming bad guys really are just bad > guys. Del replies: A few exceptions don't invalidate a rule. And though Harry may have been superficially wrong a few times, he was never *truly* wrong. Anytime he had a really strong reaction to someone he knew, he was right. > One of the primary themes of SS/PS is don't judge > a book by its cover, based on Snape Except that even then Harry got a whole load of things exactly right: Snape truly was a mean person, Snape truly hated Harry, and Snape wasn't on the side of Good because he actually morally believed it was the right thing to do. Sure Harry got some "superficial" things wrong (like Snape wanting to kill him), but he was exactly right concerning the deeper sides of Snape. > and the theme could be observed also in CoS(Lockheart), > PoA(Sirus), and DH(Snape again). Harry was never taken in by Lockhart, he only hated Sirius as long as he hadn't met him, and though he eventually recognised Snape's courage, he still was exactly right about Snape not being a good person and about Snape's "natural" loyalties: Snape started as a Death Eater, and would have gone on being a Death Eater till he had died, if it hadn't been for the half-heard Prophecy. > I don't particularly CARE why Slytherins think these > things. Maybe I should, and maybe if she had invested > more in that, the story would be more interesting... > but I don't need the reasons or explanations or > background to know that what they're thinking is wrong. And I totally understand that, in the context of the book. My problem is that this is a very dangerous message to send, IMO: "you don't need to know why others think like they do, you just need to know that they are wrong". In a book where Right and Wrong are clearly defined, that's all fine, but what about Real Life? Right and Wrong are NOT clearly defined in Real Life, in fact they are highly subjective and personal values. So the message above becomes: "whatever you think is right is Right, and whatever you think is wrong is Wrong, and you are totally entitled to disliking people who do what you think is wrong, no matter what their reasons for doing it might be". This message is quite simply an endorsement of bigotry, in my opinion: "don't hesitate to make the rules and to discriminate against people who don't follow them." Just because JKR, through Harry, seems to be mainly in line with the current PC opinions, doesn't mean that her message is anymore acceptable *to me*. Bigotry is bigotry, even when it comes from the good guys and it's based on Good Values. Just my opinion, Del From carylcb at hotmail.com Wed Oct 31 22:16:39 2007 From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:16:39 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178752 Liatris wrote: > What are your favorite HP quotes? I liked what Dumbledore told Harry about the Mirror of Erised: "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." clcb58 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 31 23:16:46 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:16:46 -0000 Subject: Elder Wand (was: Harry's bed (was Re: A sandwich)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Cheesy is in the eye of the beholder; I would not presume to argue > > that. I could also not say whether or not the 'voice' seems like > > Harry's natural one, though in my view such a short snippet cannot be > > too far off. > > > > Where I feel I can disagree with your opinion is the seeming suggestion > > that the sentiment expressed is not one Harry sincerely holds. From > > Book 1, Harry has been depicted as a reluctant hero. He doesn't want > > the Stone for himself, he realizes what it would mean for him, his > > friends, and their families if Voldemort got the Stone. He has no > > desire to be in the Triwizard Tournament. At the end of HBP he thinks > > of the necessity of confronting Voldemort as a "nightmare". So yes, he > > has seen a lot of trouble, and yes, he does not want any more. > va32h: > > I have been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that I probably > would have had no problem with that line in PS. It sounds like > something 11 year old Harry would say...and even at 11 Harry has had > more trouble than most people have had in a lifetime. > I guess I was expecting something *more* from 17 year old Harry who > had seen and survived a lot worse than Fluffy, Devil's Snare, a giant > chess set and Voldemort out the back of Quirrell's head. 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. From vsudd at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 31 23:58:40 2007 From: vsudd at sbcglobal.net (vjsudd) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:58:40 -0000 Subject: A ? to ponder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 178756 Liatris asked: > What are your favorite HP quotes? "vjsudd" replies with: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." from Chamber of Secrets